R v Simmons

Case [2015] QCA 194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simmons [2015] QCA 194

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMMONS, Iain Bruce
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 22 of 2015
DC No 353 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 27 January 2015 (Conviction); Unreported, 29 January 2015 (Sentence)

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 July 2015

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – OTHER CASES – where at the conclusion of a trial over six days in the District Court at Brisbane the appellant was found guilty of the offence of rape (Count 2 on the indictment) – where the appellant was acquitted on Count 1 which alleged indecent assault of the same complainant – where a conviction was recorded and the appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment – where four days of pre-sentence custody were declared to be time served and no orders were made suspending the sentence or fixing a parole eligibility date – where the appellant was 30 years old at the time of the alleged offending – where the appellant attended the Stock Exchange Hotel to have some drinks with friends – where at the hotel bar, the appellant met the complainant, who was then 22 years old, and her female flat mate – where the appellant had never met them before and he and the flat mate flirted – where at closing time, the three of them left and travelled by taxi to the unit where the complainant and her flat mate resided – where upon arrival at the unit, the complainant went to her room and changed into her sleeping clothes – where the appellant entered her room, asked her if she was “ok” and hugged her, which she reciprocated – where the appellant then tried to kiss the complainant and she pushed him away, telling him that she was “fine” and that he needed to leave the room – where the complainant went into the kitchen to make some toast and the appellant approached her from behind, placed his hands on her hips and pressed his hips against hers – where the complainant removed the appellant’s hands – where the appellant pressed up against her again and tried to kiss her neck and the complainant pushed him away, telling him that he needed to leave her alone; that he was there for her flat mate; and that she had a boyfriend – where at that point, the flat mate came into view and the appellant desisted – where the conduct in the kitchen formed the basis of Count 1 – where the complainant returned to her bedroom and…

Continue reading R v Simmons

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Simmons [2015] QCA 194
Case
[2015] QCA 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Simmons, the appellant was found guilty of the offence of rape by a jury in the District Court at Brisbane, following a trial that spanned six days. The appellant was acquitted on a charge of indecent assault of the same complainant, which was Count 1 of the indictment. He was subsequently convicted of rape, as outlined in Count 2, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with four days of pre-sentence custody deemed time served. The appellant, who was 30 years old at the time of the alleged offence, had attended the Stock Exchange Hotel with friends. There, he met the complainant, who was 22 years old, and her flat mate. Following a night of socialising, the three went to the complainant's unit. The appellant entered the complainant's bedroom, and despite her repeated refusals, he proceeded to engage in sexual acts with her while she was asleep.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolved around whether the trial judge erred in overturning a section 590AA application to exclude evidence of the appellant's sexual encounter with the complainant's flat mate. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the complainant's conversation with her boyfriend on the phone and failed to direct them that the appellant's reasonable belief must be assessed within his particular circumstances. Furthermore, the court examined whether the jury's verdict of not guilty on Count 1 and guilty on Count 2 was unreasonable.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in overturning the section 590AA application, as the evidence was relevant to the appellant's state of mind and intentions. The court also determined that there was no misdirection concerning the complainant's phone conversation, as the evidence was already before the jury and its significance was adequately addressed. Regarding the appellant's reasonable belief, the court concluded that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on this matter by instructing them to assess the appellant's belief in his particular circumstances. Finally, the court found that the jury's verdict, acquitting the appellant of Count 1 but convicting him of Count 2, was not unreasonable given the evidence presented.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.