R v. Walker - [2007] QCA 446

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walker [2007] QCA 446

PARTIES:

R
v
WALKER, Glenn Barry
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 234 of 2007
DC No 345 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2007

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

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 – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERALLY – where evidence was admitted of a previous assault by the appellant on the complainant – where the appellant contended that the evidence was prejudicial and of limited probative value and that the judge's directions given as to the limited use to be made of the evidence would not have stopped the jury wrongly using that evidence – whether the directions were appropriate – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant's evidence contained inconsistencies to the extent that the appellant contended that the guilty verdicts could not be supported by the evidence – where the discrepancies were not unexpected given the complainant was aged between six and eight years at the relevant times, her special problems and the time frame over which she was required to recall events – whether, on that evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

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 – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant contended that the convictions on counts 1 and 5 were inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2, 3 and 4 and that the convictions and acquittals of the jury could not be rationally reconciled – whether a rational view of the evidence allowed for the verdicts of acquittal on counts 2, 3 and 4 to sit with the verdicts of convictions on counts 1 and 5

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON –whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 130, s 132B

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
R v B (1992) 175 CLR 599, followed
R v Chevathen…

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. Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2007] QCA 446
Case: [2007] QCA 446
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v. Walker, the appellant sought to overturn his convictions for various sexual offences involving a child complainant. The case was heard in the court of appeal where the appellant contested the validity of the verdicts on several grounds. Central to the appeal was the contention that the evidence of a previous assault by the appellant on the complainant was prejudicial and its admission led to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the judge's directions to the jury on the limited use of this evidence were insufficient to prevent its prejudicial impact. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were such that they undermined the reliability of the verdicts, given the young age of the complainant and the time elapsed since the events in question. The appellant also argued that the convictions on certain counts were inconsistent with the acquittals on others, suggesting an irreconcilable discrepancy in the jury's verdicts. Finally, the appellant contested the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court of appeal examined whether the evidence of the previous assault had indeed prejudiced the jury to the extent of a miscarriage of justice. It considered the adequacy of the judge's directions and the inherent difficulties in the complainant's testimony due to her young age and the passage of time. The court determined that the judge's directions were appropriate and that the jury could reasonably have considered all evidence in reaching its verdicts. Regarding the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the court held that despite the discrepancies, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The court also found that the verdicts, including both convictions and acquittals, could be rationally reconciled given the evidence presented. Finally, the court rejected the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive, affirming the trial judge's assessment.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. This decision upheld the original verdicts and sentence, maintaining the appellant's convictions for the offences as determined by the jury.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Walker [2007] QCA 446
PARTIES:	R v WALKER, Glenn Barry (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 234 of 2007 DC No 345 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	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 – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERALLY – where evidence was admitted of a previous assault by the appellant on the complainant – where the appellant contended that the evidence was prejudicial and of limited probative value and that the judge's directions given as to the limited use to be made of the evidence would not have stopped the jury wrongly using that evidence – whether the directions were appropriate – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant's evidence contained inconsistencies to the extent that the appellant contended that the guilty verdicts could not be supported by the evidence – where the discrepancies were not unexpected given the complainant was aged between six and eight years at the relevant times, her special problems and the time frame over which she was required to recall events – whether, on that evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt 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 – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant contended that the convictions on counts 1 and 5 were inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2, 3 and 4 and that the convictions and acquittals of the jury could not be rationally reconciled – whether a rational view of the evidence allowed for the verdicts of acquittal on counts 2, 3 and 4 to sit with the verdicts of convictions on counts 1 and 5 CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON –whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 130, s 132B M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v B (1992) 175 CLR 599, followed R v Chevathen…