Legal Research
Cases
R v Stirling

R v Stirling

Case [1996] QCA 342 17 September 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 342
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No. 205 of 1996
[R v. Stirling]

T H E Q U E E N

PETER THOMAS STIRLING

Appellant

Fitzgerald P
Davies JA
Thomas J

Judgment delivered 17 September 1996

Separate reasons for judgment by each member of the Court, all concurring as to the orders made.

Orders:

1.Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2.Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
3.Appeal against sentence allowed.

4.Ordered that the sentence imposed below in respect of the appellant's conviction for rape

be set aside.

5.Ordered that in lieu the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for seven years with a recommendation that the appellant be considered eligible for release on parole on 4 October 1999

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Misdirection and non-direction - Appellant convicted of rape and indecent assault - Admissibility of evidence of flight - Trial Judge paraphrased directions on proof beyond reasonable doubt - Whether the errors caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Sentence - Whether sentence of nine years' imprisonment for rape manifestly excessive - Interstate parole -Fresh recommendation for parole necessary under s.157(3) of Penalties & Sentences Act.
Counsel:	Mr A. Rafter for the Appellant Ms L. Clare for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Department of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 29 August 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.
Judgment delivered 17/09/1996

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Thomas J.

I agree that the trial judge misdirected the jury on important matters, namely the effect of the evidence that the appellant failed to appear on the original date set for his trial and the requirement that his guilt on the rape count be established beyond reasonable doubt. I am not clear that the directions given were deficient in only the respects raised by the appellant, since I am unsure what was intended to be conveyed to the jury by the direction concerning the appellant’s failure to appear or how it would have understood what was said. The appeal must therefore be allowed unless there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice: Criminal Code, sub-s. 668E(1).

While it is legitimate to take into account that there was no material request for redirections at the appellant’s trial, a conclusion that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice can only be reached in circumstances such as the present if the jury, properly instructed and acting rationally, must have convicted. That seems to me to be the position in this case. The only issue was whether the appellant had not only indecently assaulted the complainant - as he admitted - but also had sexual intercourse with her, as she swore. The corroboration of her evidence by the result of a vaginal swab put the issue beyond dispute when there was no evidence to the contrary.

I agree that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

I also agree that…

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 Stirling

Details

AGLC: R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342
Case: [1996] QCA 342
Decision Date: 17/09/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stirling, the appellant was convicted of charges including rape and indecent assault. The case was heard and determined in a relevant Australian court. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had misdirected or failed to direct the jury on certain aspects of the evidence and legal principles applicable to the case, particularly in relation to the admissibility of evidence of the appellant's flight and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's paraphrased directions to the jury on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the admissibility of evidence of flight amounted to errors that could have caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant's legal representatives argued that the trial judge's directions were insufficient and misdirected the jury, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The court assessed the trial judge's directions in the context of the principles set out in previous case law, specifically examining whether the directions correctly conveyed the legal principles to the jury.

The court concluded that while there were some shortcomings in the trial judge's directions, these did not reach the level of causing a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court found that the jury was adequately directed on the principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the admissibility of evidence of flight. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The court did not find that the errors in the directions were so significant as to warrant a new trial.

Orders