R v Stoian - [2010] QCA 263

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stoian [2010] QCA 263

PARTIES:

R
v
STOIAN, Ioan
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 38 of 2010
DC No 1232 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The verdict of guilty on the count of taking a child for an immoral purpose is set aside and an acquittal is entered;

2. The verdict of guilty on the count of rape is set aside and a new trial is ordered in respect of that count.

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – DEFINITIONS AND IN GENERAL – where appellant detained as a classified patient in an authorised mental health service – where appellant detained following conviction but prior to sentencing – whether certain provisions of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) operate to suspend this Court’s determination of the appeal

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where appellant convicted of one count of taking a child under 12 for immoral purposes and one count of rape – where Crown case on the former count was that the complainant had been taken by the appellant by threat of force – where appellant argued that, on the evidence, the jury could not have found that the complainant had been taken under any sort of threat – where, in relation to the latter count, appellant argued that a key part of the complainant’s evidence was of such poor quality that it ought to have been excluded by the learned trial judge – where appellant argued that, in the alternative, the key evidence, when taken together with other implausible aspects of the complainant’s evidence, made any conviction on the rape count unreasonable – whether verdict on the “taking for immoral purposes count” unreasonable – whether verdict on the “rape” count unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where complainant took part in a police interview – where, due to the poor quality of the tape, it was not clear whether the complainant had said “I did” or “I didn’t” in relation to sucking the appellant’s penis – where the learned trial judge did not tell the jury they must come to their own view on what the complainant had said – where the learned trial judge directed the jury that the complainant had said that the “act actually happened” – where there were a number of peculiarities in the complainant’s evidence which warranted consideration – where the jury’s view of the complainant’s reliability may have been influenced by a re-viewing of security footage evidence – where the security footage evidence was not made available to the jury nor was the jury made aware…

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 Stoian

Details

AGLC: R v Stoian [2010] QCA 263
Case: [2010] QCA 263
Decision Date: 1 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in R v Stoian was detained as a classified patient in an authorised mental health service following his conviction but prior to sentencing. He appealed against his conviction for taking a child under 12 for immoral purposes and rape. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that there were issues with the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appeal also questioned whether certain provisions of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) suspended the Court's determination of the appeal.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appellant argued that the jury could not have found that the complainant had been taken under any sort of threat and that a key part of the complainant’s evidence was of such poor quality that it ought to have been excluded by the trial judge. The appellant also contended that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to come to their own view on the complainant’s statements and in not making security footage evidence available to the jury.

The court found that the verdict on the count of taking a child for an immoral purpose was unreasonable as the evidence did not support a finding of threat or force. On the count of rape, the court held that a new trial was necessary because the poor quality of the key evidence and other inconsistencies rendered the verdict unreasonable. The court further found that the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the complainant had confirmed the act actually happened, and in not making the security footage evidence available to the jury.

The court set aside the verdict of guilty on the count of taking a child for an immoral purpose and entered an acquittal. The verdict of guilty on the count of rape was set aside, and a new trial was ordered for that count. The court did not find that the Mental Health Act provisions suspended its determination of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The verdict of guilty on the count of taking a child for an immoral purpose is set aside and an acquittal is entered;

2. The verdict of guilty on the count of rape is set aside and a new trial is ordered in respect of that count.

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 Stoian [2010] QCA 263
PARTIES:	R v STOIAN, Ioan (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 38 of 2010 DC No 1232 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 August 2010
JUDGES:	Holmes, Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The verdict of guilty on the count of taking a child for an immoral purpose is set aside and an acquittal is entered; 2. The verdict of guilty on the count of rape is set aside and a new trial is ordered in respect of that count.
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH – DEFINITIONS AND IN GENERAL – where appellant detained as a classified patient in an authorised mental health service – where appellant detained following conviction but prior to sentencing – whether certain provisions of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) operate to suspend this Court’s determination of the appeal CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where appellant convicted of one count of taking a child under 12 for immoral purposes and one count of rape – where Crown case on the former count was that the complainant had been taken by the appellant by threat of force – where appellant argued that, on the evidence, the jury could not have found that the complainant had been taken under any sort of threat – where, in relation to the latter count, appellant argued that a key part of the complainant’s evidence was of such poor quality that it ought to have been excluded by the learned trial judge – where appellant argued that, in the alternative, the key evidence, when taken together with other implausible aspects of the complainant’s evidence, made any conviction on the rape count unreasonable – whether verdict on the “taking for immoral purposes count” unreasonable – whether verdict on the “rape” count unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where complainant took part in a police interview – where, due to the poor quality of the tape, it was not clear whether the complainant had said “I did” or “I didn’t” in relation to sucking the appellant’s penis – where the learned trial judge did not tell the jury they must come to their own view on what the complainant had said – where the learned trial judge directed the jury that the complainant had said that the “act actually happened” – where there were a number of peculiarities in the complainant’s evidence which warranted consideration – where the jury’s view of the complainant’s reliability may have been influenced by a re-viewing of security footage evidence – where the security footage evidence was not made available to the jury nor was the jury made aware…