R v SER - [2025] QCA 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SER [2025] QCA 168

PARTIES:

R
v
SER
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 63 of 2023
SC No 884 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 12 April 2023 (Burns J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Mullins P and Brown JA

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by jury of one count of supplying a dangerous drug to a child, three counts of indecent treatment, three counts of rape of that child and one count of taking that child for immoral purposes – where the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of two further counts of rape and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the complainant’s evidence comprised of two recordings of police interviews admitted under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and pre-recorded evidence under s 21AK of the Evidence Act – where the appellant appeals his convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where the appellant submits that the complainant’s evidence was plagued by inconsistencies, uncertainties and improbabilities – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Wilson, with J B Reeves, for the appellant (pro bono)
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jasper Fogerty Lawyers for the appellant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 12 April 2023, the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of supplying a dangerous drug to a child (count 1), three counts of indecent treatment (counts 2, 4 and 6) and three counts of rape (counts 7, 10 and 11) of that child, and a further count of taking that child for immoral purposes (count 8). The offences were committed between October 2017 and early 2018, against a boy aged 11 to 12 at the time. The jury was unable to agree on a verdict in respect of a further two counts of rape (counts 3 and 5) and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed (count 9).
The appellant appeals against his convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.[1] The essence of the appellant’s argument is that the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant was plagued by inconsistencies, uncertainties and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v SER

Details

AGLC: R v SER [2025] QCA 168
Case: [2025] QCA 168
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SER, appealed against his convictions on one count of supplying a dangerous drug to a child, three counts of indecent treatment, three counts of rape of that child, and one count of taking that child for immoral purposes. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on two further counts of rape and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The appeal was based on the sole ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appellant argued that the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and improbable.

The court had to decide whether, based on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offences. The complainant’s evidence included two recordings of police interviews and pre-recorded evidence. The appellant contended that the inconsistencies, uncertainties, and improbabilities in the complainant’s evidence meant that the jury should not have convicted him. The court had to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence and determine if it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

The court found that the complainant's evidence, though not without inconsistencies, was sufficiently coherent and credible to support the jury's verdict. The inconsistencies did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence. The court held that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issue at the trial was whether any of these events occurred at all.The evidence at the trial The complainant’s evidence before the jury comprised the recordings of his interviews with police on 14 and 22 March 2019,[7] and his pre-recorded evidence given in court on 12 October 2020.[8][7]Admitted under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).[8]Presented at the trial under s 21AK of the Evidence Act. At the time of the interview on 14 March 2019, the complainant was aged 13. He told police he had come to see them to talk about a guy who raped him. He said he did not like using his [the guy’s] name because it made him feel uncomfortable. The complainant said he could not remember the date but that “he just forced me into doing it… and he forced me into doing all this like, like, all acts like … he made me do things to his thing, and he did things to me…”. He described the appellant’s house as a place “where everyone would like hang around”. When asked about the “first time” something happened, the complainant said he had gone down to the appellant’s place on his scooter, looking for CC, his friend. The appellant told him CC was “in there”, so the complainant went into the house, but CC was not there. He said the appellant also lived with a lady, K and her daughter, S. Other evidence showed K was the appellant’s partner. The complainant said the appellant gave K and S a reason to leave “and then he made me do things to him”. The complainant said the appellant made him “touch him, his thing” and then he “put his thing in, down there”. Pressed for more detail by the officer, the complainant said the appellant made him grab his penis and “made me like pull it up and down” and made the complainant “let him put it in my backside”. The complainant said the appellant let him go when a car pulled up, that the complainant thought was K’s car, and then he ran out and grabbed his scooter and went home as fast as he could and “just cried in my room”. A short time later in the interview, the complainant corrected himself and said that “the first time”, the appellant “dropped me home actually”, and that it was the “third time” when he had scootered there. The “next time”, the complainant said it was pretty much the same. This was maybe a month after the first time. He remembered seeing his brother’s ball on the step of the appellant’s house. He walked up to grab it, and then the appellant “grabbed my shirt and pulled me in”. He said he was wearing a blue polo and the appellant ripped it. The complainant was able to produce the blue polo shirt to the police, and photographs of it were tendered as exhibit 11. The complainant said the appellant did the same thing (as the first time), although it was “kind of different” because one of the appellant’s mates was there and he “poured me a drink” and then left. The complainant told police the appellant poured him a drink “and made me drink it, and then all I remember was him making me do that with his penis again, and then I woke up, ‘cause I, I think he put something in the drink, and then I woke up and thing was hurting, my butt was hurting, like he did it again”. The complainant said when he woke up, “my bum felt weird … and I left with the ball… and went home”.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v SER [2025] QCA 168
PARTIES:	R v SER (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 63 of 2023 SC No 884 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 12 April 2023 (Burns J)
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 July 2025
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ and Mullins P and Brown JA
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by jury of one count of supplying a dangerous drug to a child, three counts of indecent treatment, three counts of rape of that child and one count of taking that child for immoral purposes – where the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of two further counts of rape and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the complainant’s evidence comprised of two recordings of police interviews admitted under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and pre-recorded evidence under s 21AK of the Evidence Act – where the appellant appeals his convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where the appellant submits that the complainant’s evidence was plagued by inconsistencies, uncertainties and improbabilities – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited R v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Wilson, with J B Reeves, for the appellant (pro bono) C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jasper Fogerty Lawyers for the appellant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent