R v Sitters - [2018] QCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sitters [2018] QCA 35

PARTIES:

R
v
SITTERS, Alfred
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 15 of 2018
DC No 90 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Conviction: 11 October 2017 (Everson DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 8 March 2018
Date of Publication of Reasons: 14 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2018

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Brown J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 8 March 2018

1.   Application for leave to adduce new evidence granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   Convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3 set aside.

4.   New trials on counts 1, 2 and 3 ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of rape and two counts of indecent assault – where after trial concerns were raised about the cognitive ability of the appellant – where sentencing proceedings were adjourned for the purpose of obtaining a pre-sentence report addressing those concerns – where the parties agree that the expert evidence obtained demonstrates that the appellant may not have been fit to plead and stand trial – where it is agreed that a real and substantial question exists about the appellant’s fitness at the time of trial – whether as a result a miscarriage of justice occurred

Criminal Code (Qld), s 613

Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29, applied
Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125; [2005] HCA 68, cited
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; [1958] VicRp 9, followed
R v Spina[2012] QCA 179, cited

COUNSEL:

C Morgan for the appellant
S Dennis on behalf of M Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: On 10 October 2017, after a two day trial, the appellant was convicted of one count of rape and two counts of indecent assault. The following day the sentencing proceedings commenced. For reasons which do not presently matter, concerns were raised about the cognitive ability of the appellant and the absence of any report providing information about his mental state. The sentence proceedings were adjourned for the purpose of obtaining a pre-sentence report addressing both the cognitive and physical capacity of the appellant.
The appellant was granted an extension of time on 14 February 2018 to file the Notice of Appeal. He was also remanded in custody. As will become apparent there is material which suggests he may be at risk in jail.
Various reports have now been obtained and the parties agree that the expert evidence now demonstrates that the appellant may not have been fit to plead and stand trial. They therefore agree that there is a real and substantial question to be considered about the appellant’s fitness at…

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 Sitters

Details

AGLC: R v Sitters [2018] QCA 35
Case: [2018] QCA 35
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Sitters involved an appeal against the appellant’s conviction for one count of rape and two counts of indecent assault. The court was required to consider whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the appellant’s potential unfitness to stand trial. The issue arose after the trial when concerns about the appellant’s cognitive abilities surfaced, leading to a pre-sentence report. Both parties agreed that the expert evidence obtained suggested the appellant might not have been fit to plead and stand trial, and that there was a real and substantial question about the appellant’s fitness at the time of the trial.

The court had to determine whether the new evidence of the appellant’s cognitive abilities constituted a miscarriage of justice and warranted a new trial. The appellant argued that the new evidence demonstrated a significant possibility that he was unfit to stand trial, which would render his convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court considered the principles of miscarriage of justice and the need to ensure fair trial rights, weighing the potential impact of the new evidence on the original verdict.

The court concluded that the new evidence presented a real and substantial question about the appellant’s fitness to stand trial, and therefore a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court granted leave to adduce the new evidence and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions on all three counts. The court ordered new trials on counts 1, 2 and 3 to ensure that the appellant’s right to a fair trial was upheld.

The court's orders included granting leave to adduce new evidence, allowing the appeal, setting aside the convictions, and ordering new trials on all three counts. These orders were made to rectify the miscarriage of justice and to provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to be tried by a competent and impartial tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 8 March 2018

1. Application for leave to adduce new evidence granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3 set aside.

4. New trials on counts 1, 2 and 3 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.

CITATION:	R v Sitters [2018] QCA 35
PARTIES:	R v SITTERS, Alfred (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 15 of 2018 DC No 90 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Conviction: 11 October 2017 (Everson DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 8 March 2018 Date of Publication of Reasons: 14 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2018
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Brown J
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 8 March 2018 1. Application for leave to adduce new evidence granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3 set aside. 4. New trials on counts 1, 2 and 3 ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of rape and two counts of indecent assault – where after trial concerns were raised about the cognitive ability of the appellant – where sentencing proceedings were adjourned for the purpose of obtaining a pre-sentence report addressing those concerns – where the parties agree that the expert evidence obtained demonstrates that the appellant may not have been fit to plead and stand trial – where it is agreed that a real and substantial question exists about the appellant’s fitness at the time of trial – whether as a result a miscarriage of justice occurred Criminal Code (Qld), s 613 Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29, applied Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125; [2005] HCA 68, cited R v Presser [1958] VR 45; [1958] VicRp 9, followed R v Spina[2012] QCA 179, cited
COUNSEL:	C Morgan for the appellant S Dennis on behalf of M Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent