R v Sheppard

Case [2010] QCA 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sheppard [2010] QCA 342

PARTIES:

R
v
SHEPPARD, Christopher James Robin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 151 of 2010
DC No 3496 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction is allowed.

2.   Conviction is set aside.

3.   A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MIS-DIRECTION – appellant convicted of rape –  inconsistent statements made to police – appellant first said he had not been in complainant's room – appellant later accepted that he had been in complainant's room but had not improperly touched the complainant – prosecution encouraged jury to treat lie as relevant to credit and as an attempt by the appellant to 'distance himself' from the offence – leaned trial judge gave a Zoneff direction on lies – whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give jury an Edwards direction – whether misdirection resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, applied
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, distinguished

COUNSEL:

T Glynn for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant, Christopher James Robin Sheppard, was convicted after a three day jury trial of raping by digital penetration a 17 year old female Japanese home-stay student who was living in Brisbane and attending high school.  He was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment with an order that he be eligible to apply for parole on 9 September 2011.  He originally appealed against his conviction and applied for leave to appeal against his sentence but his counsel made submissions only as to his appeal against conviction.  The sole ground of appeal was that:

"the learned trial judge directed the jury with respect to lies (said to have been told by the appellant to police in the course of an interview) in such a way as to leave open the possibility that the jury may use the lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt.  Her Honour did not, in those circumstances, give proper directions in accordance with the decision of the High Court in The Queen v Edwards (1993) 178 CLR 193."

The evidence at trial

  1. The appellant was a guest at a party where the complainant was living with the female house-owner, a female Chinese home-stay high school student, and two female Korean home-stay high school students.  The complainant and the appellant…

Continue reading R v Sheppard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sheppard [2010] QCA 342
Case
[2010] QCA 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sheppard, the appellant was convicted of the crime of rape and brought an appeal against his conviction. The central issue in the appeal was whether certain judicial directions given to the jury constituted a misdirection or non-direction that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide an appropriate direction in relation to his inconsistent statements made to the police, which first denied any presence in the complainant's room and later admitted presence but denied improper contact. The prosecution argued that these lies were relevant to the appellant's credit and an attempt to distance himself from the offence. The appeal court was required to decide whether the trial judge erred in not giving a specific direction regarding the appellant's lies, and if this omission led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered whether the trial judge should have given a direction under Edwards v The Queen, which pertains to the consideration of lies told by a defendant in their evidence. The court found that the trial judge did not adequately address the appellant's lies and did not give an appropriate direction to the jury on how to assess these lies in relation to the appellant's credibility. The court held that the misdirection by the trial judge amounted to a miscarriage of justice as it significantly impacted the jury's ability to fairly assess the appellant's evidence and ultimately his guilt. The appellate court concluded that the misdirection was substantial enough to warrant setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The court ordered a retrial to ensure that the appellant receives a fair trial, free from the judicial errors identified. The court did not make any further orders beyond mandating the retrial, leaving the specifics of the retrial to be determined in the lower court proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of proper judicial direction in criminal trials, particularly in relation to the assessment of a defendant's credibility and the impact of their lies on their overall case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction is allowed.

2. Conviction is set aside.

3. A retrial is ordered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.