R v Smith

Case [2014] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2014] QCA 277

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Leslie Glyn
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 45 of 2014
DC No 182 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Philippides and Dalton JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY PROCEEDINGS – DELAY – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of rape – where the appellant sought a permanent stay of the indictment on the ground of unfairness – where the delay was approximately 25 years – where the appellant contended that the delay had caused him “insurmountable difficulties” in testing the complainant’s evidence – whether the judge erred in refusing to grant a permanent stay

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE, REPUTATION OR MORALITY – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of rape – where the appellant admitted the act of sexual intercourse, leaving only consent in issue – where the complainant gave evidence that the age disparity between her and the appellant was one of several reasons why she would not have consented to sex with him – where the trial judge refused to grant the appellant’s counsel leave under s 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 to cross-examine the complainant to establish that she had previously had sex with an older man – whether the evidence was of substantial relevance to the fact in issue – whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant leave

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of rape – where the appellant admitted the act of sexual intercourse, leaving only consent in issue – where the appellant contended that the complainant’s testimony was so unreliable and marred by discrepancies between her account and the testimony of the other witnesses that the jury could not have been satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied to the required degree of the appellant’s guilt – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF TRIAL JUDGE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of rape – where the trial judge permitted the jury to have the exhibit which was the appellant’s interview with police during their deliberations – where the trial judge gave the appropriate direction to the jury against giving disproportionate weight to the evidence – whether the trial judge erred in the exercise…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2014] QCA 277
Case
[2014] QCA 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of rape. The central issue was the credibility of the complainant's testimony regarding consent, given that the appellant admitted to the act of sexual intercourse. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's decisions were correct in several respects, including the refusal to grant a permanent stay due to delay, the refusal to allow cross-examination regarding the complainant's sexual history, the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, and the handling of the jury's deliberations. The appellant argued that the lengthy delay in bringing the charges had prejudiced his ability to defend himself, the exclusion of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual history was erroneous, the jury's verdict was unreasonable, and the trial judge's handling of the jury's deliberations was flawed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a permanent stay due to the delay, as the appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had caused him insurmountable difficulties in defending himself. The court also held that the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in not allowing cross-examination on the complainant's sexual history, as the evidence was not of substantial relevance to the issue of consent. Furthermore, the Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, given the evidence presented. The Court also determined that the trial judge did not err in his handling of the jury's deliberations, as there was no procedural unfairness in not disclosing the voting numbers to the appellant's counsel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The reasoning and decisions of the trial judge were affirmed, and the conviction stood as delivered by the jury. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion or the jury's verdict. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.