R v TAQ

The appeal in the case of R v TAQ involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury of one count of rape, nine counts of common assault, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. The appellant contested the conviction on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the improper admission of evidence and failure to direct the jury to avoid impermissible reasoning. Furthermore, the appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, specifically pointing to errors in the calculation of the non-parole period and the cumulative sentencing of certain offences.

The court had to address whether the primary judge erred in admitting the statement made by the appellant to Mr P, which the prosecution argued was an admission to the specific incident of rape charged. The appellant argued that the statement was not reasonably capable of being construed as an admission to the specific incident, and the court referred to R v Caulfield to determine admissibility. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a failure to direct the jury to avoid impermissible reasoning, particularly in the context of the jury being left to consider evidence of violence in relation to the rape charge. Finally, the court examined the sentencing decisions, focusing on the calculation of the non-parole period and the cumulative sentencing of certain offences.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in admitting the statement as it was reasonably capable of being construed as an admission. The court concluded that there was no failure to direct the jury to avoid impermissible reasoning, as the summing up was structured to deal separately with specific directions for the offences of violence from the specific directions for the count of rape. Regarding the sentence, the court held that the primary judge erred in the calculation of the non-parole period by not taking into account the non-declarable pre-sentence custody. Furthermore, the court found that the sentences for counts 8, 9, 11, 18 and 24 should be ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence for count 15. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, and the appeal against the sentence was allowed with modifications to the non-parole period and the ordering of sentences.

The final orders were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, leave to appeal against the sentence be granted, the appeal against sentence be allowed with the non-parole period fixed to make the appellant eligible for parole on 27 November 2022, and in all other respects, the sentences imposed by the trial judge be confirmed.