R v Soloman

Case [2006] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Soloman [2006] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
SOLOMAN, Basil Adam
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 1 of 2006
DC No 1839 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2006

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction allowed
2. Conviction set aside
3. New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether trial judge erred in failing to give a direction to jury in relation to good character

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – consent in dispute – intermediate version of events that appellant had honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that complainant gave consent was open – whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury in relation to s 24(1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether trial judge directed jury as to use of appellant’s conduct after the alleged rape as evidence of his consciousness of guilt

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24

Cumberbatch (No 5) (2002) 130 A Crim R 599; [2002] VSC 289, 6 May 2002, considered
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, 5 August 1999, considered
R v Cutts [2005] QCA 306; CA 97 of 2005, 23 August 2005, distinguished
R v CV [2004] QCA 411; CA No 182 of 2004, 5 November 2004, distinguished
R v Falealili [1996] 3 NZLR 664, considered
R v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, 5 August 1999, considered
Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319, cited
Stevens v R (2005) 80 ALRJ 91; [2005] HCA 65; B20 of 2005, 21 October 2005, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter SC for appellant
D L Meredith for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. JERRARD JA: On 14 December 2005 Mr Soloman was convicted by a jury of having raped S on or about 13 December 2003. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment and has appealed his conviction, relying on three grounds. The first is that the learned trial judge erred in failing to give a direction to the jury in relation to his good character; the second that the judge erred in failing to give a direction on the way in which the jury could use his conduct after…

Continue reading R v Soloman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Soloman [2006] QCA 244
Case
[2006] QCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Solomon, the appellant was convicted of raping a woman, and he brought an appeal against the conviction before the court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in not directing the jury regarding the appellant's good character, and if this constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court had to determine if the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the issue of consent, which was a disputed element of the offence. Specifically, the court considered whether an intermediate version of events, where the appellant had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the complainant consented, was open to the jury.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not directing the jury about the appellant's good character, which could have influenced the jury's assessment of his credibility. Furthermore, the court concluded that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the issue of consent, which was crucial in determining whether the appellant had committed the offence. The court found that a version of events where the appellant had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in consent was available to the jury, and the omission to direct them on this point constituted a significant error.

As a result of these errors, the court determined that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appellant's conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proper jury directions in ensuring a fair trial, particularly in cases where character and consent are pivotal issues. The court's ruling highlighted the necessity for trial judges to provide comprehensive directions to the jury to avoid the risk of a wrongful conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed

2. Conviction set aside

3. New trial 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.