R v TP; R v SBA - [2007] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v TP; R v SBA [2007] QCA 169

PARTIES:

R
v
TP
(appellant)

R
v
SBA
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2006
CA No 295 of 2006
DC No 375 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. In CA No 289 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed
2. In CA No 295 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRAIGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRAIGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERALLY – where appellant T claimed that evidence in S's case contained prejudicial statements that were of little probative weight – where it was also claimed that the trial judge failed to give adequate directions on that evidence – where separate trials were requested – whether this led to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the complainant’s husband was permitted to sit behind the complainant while she gave evidence at trial – where the learned trial judge identified the witness as the complainant’s husband – where the learned trial judge told the jury that the husband “knew” what had happened and was supporting the complainant – whether this constituted by implication an inadmissible and irrelevant favourable opinion of the husband, supporting the complainant's credibility

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the learned trial judge made comments on the evidence during the summing up – where both appellants claimed the summing up lacked balance – where there was a subsequent redirection – whether the redirection was adequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where evidence was given regarding the appellant T teaching the complainant to masturbate – whether the evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible – whether the admission of the evidence led to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where there was conflicting evidence adduced at the trial – where the learned trial judge had given a direction as to the…

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 TP; R v SBA

Details

AGLC: R v TP; R v SBA [2007] QCA 169
Case: [2007] QCA 169
Decision Date: 25 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The two appellants, T and S, sought an appeal against their convictions and sentences, claiming various grounds of error in their trials. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge’s directions and handling of evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice, or if the alleged errors were not substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The appellants argued that prejudicial statements in the evidence were given undue weight, and that the judge did not provide adequate direction regarding this evidence. They also claimed that the trial judge made improper comments on the evidence during the summing up, and that the husband of the complainant was allowed to sit behind her while she gave evidence, which may have unduly influenced the jury.

The court examined the evidence and the trial judge's directions, considering whether the alleged errors could have influenced the jury's decision. It was noted that the complainant's husband was permitted to sit behind the complainant, but the court found that the trial judge did not provide an inadmissible favourable opinion on the husband's credibility. The court also reviewed the comments made by the trial judge during the summing up and concluded that the redirection provided to the jury was adequate. Regarding the evidence about appellant T teaching the complainant to masturbate, the court found that it was relevant and did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury on resolving conflicts in evidence adequately conveyed the requirement to convict only if guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

After thorough consideration of the appellants' arguments, the court found that the alleged errors did not result in a miscarriage of justice or were not substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 289 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed

2. In CA No 295 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed

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 TP; R v SBA [2007] QCA 169
PARTIES:	R v TP (appellant) R v SBA (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2006 CA No 295 of 2006 DC No 375 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	25 May 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 March 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. In CA No 289 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed 2. In CA No 295 of 2006: the appeal is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRAIGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRAIGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERALLY – where appellant T claimed that evidence in S's case contained prejudicial statements that were of little probative weight – where it was also claimed that the trial judge failed to give adequate directions on that evidence – where separate trials were requested – whether this led to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the complainant’s husband was permitted to sit behind the complainant while she gave evidence at trial – where the learned trial judge identified the witness as the complainant’s husband – where the learned trial judge told the jury that the husband “knew” what had happened and was supporting the complainant – whether this constituted by implication an inadmissible and irrelevant favourable opinion of the husband, supporting the complainant's credibility CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the learned trial judge made comments on the evidence during the summing up – where both appellants claimed the summing up lacked balance – where there was a subsequent redirection – whether the redirection was adequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where evidence was given regarding the appellant T teaching the complainant to masturbate – whether the evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible – whether the admission of the evidence led to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where there was conflicting evidence adduced at the trial – where the learned trial judge had given a direction as to the…