R v Teece

Case [2019] QCA 246

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Teece [2019] QCA 246

PARTIES:

R
v
TEECE, Nathan Alexander
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 130 of 2018
DC No 489 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 2 May 2018 (McGinness DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2019

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of rape – where the offending occurred in the early hours of the morning while the complainant was asleep in the bedroom – where the appellant contended that it was not open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt because of, inter alia, the absence of his DNA on vaginal and underwear swabs, the absence of other witnesses or independent evidence, the level of intoxication of the complainant and her being fully clothed – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant contended that the admission into evidence of words spoken by the appellant after the alleged offending were not capable of constituting an admission of guilt or statement against interest, and that allowing them into evidence had the potential to influence the jury’s consideration, giving rise to a miscarriage of justice – where the evidence was that the appellant said “What have I done? What the fuck?” – whether those words, in their context, constituted an admission such that they were admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with no parole eligibility date – where the applicant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive – where the appellant was 29 at the time of offending and 31 at sentence with a minor, irrelevant criminal history – where the applicant had plead not guilty, and where the complainant had suffered long lasting adverse impacts – where the offending occurred when the complainant was asleep in her bed, in breach of her trust – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

R v Ali[2017] QCA 300, considered
R v Basacar[2006] QCA 352, considered
R v Burton[2014] QCA 37, considered
R v Caulfield[2012] QCA 204, applied
R v Press[1997] QCA 7, considered
R v Sollitt[2019] QCA 44, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the appellant/applicant
M J Hynes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jasper Fogerty…

Continue reading R v Teece

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Teece [2019] QCA 246
Case
[2019] QCA 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Teece concerns the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty of raping the complainant while she slept. The case was heard by the court of appeal, which was required to determine whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. Additionally, the court examined whether certain evidence was improperly admitted and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence, particularly in light of the absence of the appellant’s DNA on the complainant’s body and clothing, the lack of other witnesses, the complainant’s level of intoxication, and her being fully clothed at the time of the offence. The court also needed to decide if the words spoken by the appellant post-offence were properly admitted as an admission of guilt or statement against interest. Lastly, the court assessed whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment with no parole eligibility was manifestly excessive.

The court of appeal held that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable despite the appellant’s arguments. The absence of DNA evidence, the complainant’s state of intoxication, and her being fully clothed were not dispositive factors. The court found that the complainant’s testimony, which included waking up to the act of penetration, was credible and corroborated by other evidence. Regarding the post-offence words spoken by the appellant, the court determined that they were properly admitted as they could be interpreted as an admission of guilt in context. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the offence and the appellant’s criminal history.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and to refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant also appeals against his sentence of seven years imprisonment with no parole eligibility date on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.The complainant’s evidence On 12 February 2016, the complainant and her husband, Daniel, celebrated his birthday by going out to dinner and then to a nightclub with a group of friends. The group included the appellant, who the complainant knew as he was a long-time friend of her husband.[1] Over the course of the evening the complainant consumed two glasses of wine, one shot of Jägermeister and three vodka cranberries.[2] She became tipsy.[3][1]AB2 at 38.09.[2]AB2 at 12.04-32.[3]AB2 at 23.23. In the early hours of the morning, a number of the group left the nightclub by taxi and travelled to the townhouse where the complainant and her husband were staying the night. It was owned by the complainant’s mother in law and was in a gated complex. CCTV footage from the taxi showed the complainant, the appellant and their friends getting out of a cab at around 3.38 am in the morning.[4][4]AB2 at 153-157 and 94.44-46. Soon after arriving, the complainant decided to go upstairs to the master bedroom to go to sleep.[5] The remaining group continued socialising. The group included her husband; the appellant; Morwenna, her sister in law; James McAuley; Matthew Hanley; and Jack Wilson.[5]AB2 at 15.04. After entering the bedroom, the complainant changed into a black singlet and pyjama shorts, leaving her underwear on, and fell asleep.[6][6]AB2 at 16.44-17.04. A number of the group went upstairs at various times and saw the complainant asleep on the bed. At one stage, when she was upstairs, Morwenna noticed that the handle of the bedroom had become loose on the inside and had fallen to the ground. She used a doorstop to keep the door ajar and returned downstairs.[7][7]AB2 at 74.33-38. At one stage, Daniel and James noticed that the appellant was not downstairs with the others and went to look for him outside the unit which was part of a gated residence. The complainant fell asleep on her side and gave evidence that she remembered waking up with “a weight on her back and feeling that something was inside of me … Inside my vagina … I was being penetrated by someone”.[8] She was in shock for “a couple of seconds” and then turned her head to the side and saw the appellant’s silhouette and immediately screamed out her husband’s name.[9] The complainant said she “got one scream out” and then the appellant covered her mouth. She managed to get her “head up at some point out of his hand and screamed two more times”. Then the appellant put his hand back on her mouth. She was face down with her arms pinned down by her side. She heard her husband at the door and said that “the next minute [the appellant] was off me and just almost disappeared”.[10][8]AB2 at 18.04-08.[9]AB2 at 18.11-14.[10]AB2 at 18.16-21. The complainant’s evidence was that she was “penetrated and he was moving quite fast, in and out of me”.[11] Her legs and hips were on the bed.[12] In cross examination, the complainant said that she had no recollection of her legs being pushed apart or the initial act of penetration but reiterated that she “woke up when … it was happening” referring to the motion of “moving in and out” of her. The appellant may have actually penetrated her for a few seconds before she woke up.[13][11]AB2 at 18.43-44.[12]AB2 at 27.09.[13]AB2 at 33.26-44.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.