R v Tory - [2022] QCA 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tory [2022] QCA 276

PARTIES:

R
v
TORY, Christopher Glen
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 209 of 2021
DC No 360 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 29 July 2021 (Clarke DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2022

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Dalton JJA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of rape – where the appellant contended the guilty verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence – where parts of the complainant’s evidence were corroborated – where the only issue at trial was consent – whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set three years after the date of sentence – where the appellant contends the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v Benjamin (2012) 224 A Crim R 40; [2012] QCA 188, cited
R v Coutts[2016] QCA 206, cited
R v Dowden[2010] QCA 125, considered
R v GAR[2014] QCA 30, cited
R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, cited
R v Miller (2021) 8 QR 221; [2021] QCA 126, cited
R v Neto[2016] QCA 217, cited
R v Stirling[1996] QCA 342, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO JA: I agree with Kelly J.
DALTON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Kelly J and his reasons.
KELLY J: The appellant was tried in the District Court on an indictment containing one count of rape. On 29 July 2021, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years with his parole eligibility date set as 29 July 2024. The appellant appeals his conviction on the ground that it was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. In the alternative, he seeks leave to appeal his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.
Background matters
During the morning of 27 December 2019, the complainant and the appellant had been at a residential address in Rockhampton. The complainant was there to inspect a car which had been advertised…

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 Tory

Details

AGLC: R v Tory [2022] QCA 276
Case: [2022] QCA 276
Decision Date: 23 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tory, the appellant was convicted of one count of rape. The central issue on appeal was whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The complainant's testimony was corroborated in certain respects, but the primary issue at the trial was the question of consent. The appellant argued that the jury's conclusion was flawed given the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and the jury's reasoning in detail. It found that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's version of events and accept the complainant's account. The court held that the jury's verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence. The court also considered the appellant's contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence of six years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility set three years after the date of sentence, was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused. The court confirmed that the conviction would stand and that the sentence was appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

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

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 Tory [2022] QCA 276
PARTIES:	R v TORY, Christopher Glen (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 209 of 2021 DC No 360 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 29 July 2021 (Clarke DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2022
JUDGES:	McMurdo and Dalton JJA and Kelly J
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of rape – where the appellant contended the guilty verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence – where parts of the complainant’s evidence were corroborated – where the only issue at trial was consent – whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set three years after the date of sentence – where the appellant contends the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited R v Benjamin (2012) 224 A Crim R 40; [2012] QCA 188, cited R v Coutts[2016] QCA 206, cited R v Dowden[2010] QCA 125, considered R v GAR[2014] QCA 30, cited R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, cited R v Miller (2021) 8 QR 221; [2021] QCA 126, cited R v Neto[2016] QCA 217, cited R v Stirling[1996] QCA 342, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent