R v VM

Case [2022] QCA 88

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v VM [2022] QCA 88

PARTIES:

R
v
VM
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 55 of 2021
DC No 1122 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 9 March 2021 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2022

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Mullins JA and Kelly J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – TEST TO BE APPLIED – where the appellant was charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the complainant was 13 and the appellant was 43 at the time of the offending – whether the jury’s acquittal on some counts rendered the guilty verdicts inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TESTS – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the complainant was 13 and the appellant was 43 at the time of the offences – whether the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction occasioned a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TESTS – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant was charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the complainant was 13 and the appellant was 43 at the time of the offences – where the complainant’s s 93A evidence was let into the jury room – whether the jury having s 93A evidence in the jury room occasioned a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 229B, s 632
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 99

Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315; [1986] HCA 49, cited
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, followed
R v H [1999] 2 Qd R 283; [1998] QCA 348, cited
R v KAH[2012] QCA 154, cited
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591, followed
R v MCJ[2017] QCA 11, cited
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, cited

COUNSEL: 

S J Hedge for the appellant
N W Crane for the respondent

Continue reading R v VM

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v VM [2022] QCA 88
Case
[2022] QCA 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The complainant was 13 and the appellant was 43 at the time of the offending. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the jury's acquittal on some counts rendered the guilty verdicts inconsistent and whether the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, as well as other procedural issues, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's acquittal on some counts rendered the guilty verdicts inconsistent and whether the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, along with other irregularities such as the jury having s 93A evidence in the jury room, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court had to apply the test for determining inconsistency in verdicts as well as the tests for miscarriage of justice under criminal law.

The court held that the jury's acquittal on some counts did not render the guilty verdicts inconsistent. The court found that the evidence supported the guilty verdicts on the counts where the appellant was convicted, and the jury was entitled to accept the appellant's account in relation to the acquitted counts. Regarding the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, the court concluded that this did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the jury having s 93A evidence in the jury room did not amount to a miscarriage of justice in the particular circumstances of the case.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the case and upheld the appellant's convictions and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.