R v Solon - [2008] QDC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Solon [2008] QDC 127

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

Hansel Solon

FILE NO:

No. 213 of 2006

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Hearing

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATEs:

14, 16 May 2008

JUDGE:

Judge Brabazon QC

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – WITNESSES – EXPERT EVIDENCE – pre-trial hearing – where complainant suffered from schizophrenia – whether physician’s evidence to explain complainant’s capacity to give reliable evidence allowed – evidence to bolster credibility of witness – evidence which goes to explain a characteristic of a witness

Legislation
Criminal Code Act 1988 (Qld) s 590AA.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 6.
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 9-9C.

Cases
Coombe v Bessell [1994] 4 Tas R 149.
Farrell v The Queen [1998] 194 CLR 286.
Palmer v The Queen [1998] 193 CLR 1.
R v Connolly [1991] 2 Qd R 171.
R v HAK [2008] QCA 30 – 29th February 2008.
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353.

COUNSEL:

Mr M W Nathan for the Crown

Mr G Rebetzke for the Accused

SOLICITORS:

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown

Roberts and Kane for the Accused

What follows is the transcript of a ruling given on 16 May 2008. It has been revised.
This application under section 590AA of the Criminal Code has had, from a procedural point of view, an unsatisfactory course.

On the morning of the trial of this matter, as I understood it, the issue about the admissibility of Dr Alcorn’s evidence was raised for the first time. That caused the trial to be derailed. Next, a voir dire was held before another judge, in which the doctor was called at length and the complainant briefly. Surprisingly, no request was made of that judge to give a ruling about the admissibility of any of the evidence heard on the voir dire. That is my task today. It is likely there will be a fourth judge who then hears the trial. All in all, if I may say so, from a procedural point of view, a most unsatisfactory series of events.

To turn now to the issue here. As I understand it, this application, while made for a pre-trial ruling, might also rely upon the provisions in sections 9 to 9C of the Evidence Act. The ruling is sought by the defence because of what the prosecution wishes to do with Dr Alcorn’s evidence.

The complainant made an accusation of rape on 16th November 2004. That is the single charge here. I am told that intercourse is admitted. There are issues about her consent and possibly any honest and reasonable mistake the accused might have made about that consent. The complainant is a Miss S.

The issue is the admissibility of Dr Alcorn’s opinion about her mental condition, particularly her ability to give evidence at the trial now due to start in a few days’ time.
It is necessary to outline the critical…

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 Solon

Details

AGLC: R v Solon [2008] QDC 127
Case: [2008] QDC 127
Decision Date: 16 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Solon involved the defendant, Solon, who was charged with offences including sexual assault. The complainant, who suffered from schizophrenia, was a key witness in the case. The dispute centred around the admissibility of expert evidence that the court was asked to consider during a pre-trial hearing. The central legal issue was whether the physician’s evidence explaining the complainant’s capacity to give reliable evidence was admissible. Specifically, the court had to determine if such evidence was permissible to explain a characteristic of the witness or if it merely bolstered the credibility of the witness.

The court found that the evidence in question was not merely for the purpose of bolstering the credibility of the witness but was relevant to explaining a characteristic of the witness. The court held that evidence which goes to explain a characteristic of a witness is admissible as it assists the trier of fact in assessing the reliability of the evidence. In this instance, the physician’s evidence regarding the complainant’s condition and its effects on her capacity to provide reliable testimony was deemed necessary to enable the jury to properly evaluate the weight of the evidence. The court concluded that such evidence was not inadmissible solely because it might also have the incidental effect of bolstering the credibility of the witness.

Accordingly, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible, allowing the jury to better understand the impact of the complainant's schizophrenia on her ability to give reliable evidence. This decision ensured that the jury had the necessary context to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s testimony. The court’s ruling was thus a significant consideration in the admissibility of expert evidence in cases where the witness’s mental condition may affect their capacity to give reliable evidence.

Orders