R v Vaughan - [2010] QCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vaughan [2010] QCA 268

PARTIES:

R
v
VAUGHAN, Jason Ronald
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 34 of 2010
DC No 1974 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 September 2010

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of unlawful stalking – charge particularised as unlawful stalking under s 359B(d)(ii) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code) and complainant suffering "detriment" under s 359A(a) and (c) Criminal Code – complainant gave evidence that she was afraid the appellant would seek her out and rape her – complainant gave evidence in cross-examination she was afraid the appellant would kill her – whether statements were admissible and relevant to establishing detriment – whether statements should have been excluded

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – STALKING – GENERALLY – complainant gave uncontradicted evidence that appellant's conduct caused her to fear appellant, stop catching public transport and stop exhibiting artwork in gallery – whether jury entitled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that complainant apprehended or feared violence and this was a reasonable response – whether jury, on whole of the evidence, was entitled to convict the appellant of stalking

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 359A, s 359B(d)(ii)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on this own behalf
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The appellant, Jason Ronald Vaughan, pleaded not guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to unlawfully stalking the female complainant between 25 July 2008 and 22 August 2008. He was convicted after a three day trial and ordered to perform 240 hours community service and placed on two and a half years probation with a special condition that he have medical, psychological and psychiatric treatment. The judge additionally granted a restraining order against him for two years until 1 February 2012. Mr Vaughan originally appealed against his conviction and applied for leave to appeal against sentence but abandoned his sentence application the day before the hearing. The grounds of his appeal against conviction are that the trial was corrupted by the admission of highly prejudicial statements from the complainant that precluded a fair trial when those statements were pre-agreed with the prosecutor not to be admitted; and that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence. Mr Vaughan was represented at his trial but is self-represented in this appeal.

The appellant's contentions

There are two principal arguments which emerge from Mr Vaughan's written…

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 Vaughan

Details

AGLC: R v Vaughan [2010] QCA 268
Case: [2010] QCA 268
Decision Date: 8 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of the offence of unlawful stalking, a charge particularised under section 359B(d)(ii) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code). The conviction arose from conduct that caused the complainant to experience fear and apprehension, resulting in her ceasing to use public transport and removing her artwork from a gallery. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where the appellant challenged the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by the complainant during cross-examination, where she expressed fear of being killed by the appellant, were admissible and relevant to establishing the element of 'detriment' under section 359A(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the jury was properly directed and whether they were entitled to convict the appellant based on the evidence presented.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the statements made by the complainant were relevant to the detriment element of the offence, as they demonstrated the impact of the appellant's conduct on the complainant's life. The court also concluded that the jury was properly directed and that the evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant apprehended or feared violence from the appellant and that this response was reasonable. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, thereby upholding the original decision.

The final order of the court was to dismiss the appeal against conviction, thereby affirming the decision of the lower court. This outcome ensures that the appellant's conviction for the offence of unlawful stalking remains in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Vaughan [2010] QCA 268
PARTIES:	R v VAUGHAN, Jason Ronald (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 34 of 2010 DC No 1974 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 September 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of unlawful stalking – charge particularised as unlawful stalking under s 359B(d)(ii) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code) and complainant suffering "detriment" under s 359A(a) and (c) Criminal Code – complainant gave evidence that she was afraid the appellant would seek her out and rape her – complainant gave evidence in cross-examination she was afraid the appellant would kill her – whether statements were admissible and relevant to establishing detriment – whether statements should have been excluded CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – STALKING – GENERALLY – complainant gave uncontradicted evidence that appellant's conduct caused her to fear appellant, stop catching public transport and stop exhibiting artwork in gallery – whether jury entitled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that complainant apprehended or feared violence and this was a reasonable response – whether jury, on whole of the evidence, was entitled to convict the appellant of stalking Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 359A, s 359B(d)(ii) M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on this own behalf V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on this own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent