R v Wands - [2021] QCA 238

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wands [2021] QCA 238

PARTIES:

R
v
WANDS, Jarred Lee
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 296 of 2020
DC No 190 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 19 November 2020 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Mullins JA and Crow J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences arising from the appellant engaging in email, text message, and video conversations with a 14 year old girl who lived in Scotland – where the appellant was employed as a primary school teacher at the time – where the learned primary judge admitted evidence of the appellant’s failure to comply with standards imposed on teachers by the College of Teachers – whether the learned primary judge erred in admitting such evidence – whether the admission of such evidence and the prosecution’s reliance on it caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTION – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences arising from the appellant engaging in email, text message, and video conversations with a 14 year old girl who lived in Scotland – where, in the Crown closing address, the learned prosecutor made three impermissible submissions – where the appellant submits that the three submissions were contrary to rulings of the primary judge, contrary to the evidence, and irrelevant and prejudicial, respectively – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s closing address caused a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 218A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15

Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353; [1960] HCA 15, cited
Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 635, applied
Maxwell v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 309, cited
R v Fricker (1986) 42 SASR 436, cited
R v Gathercole[2016] QCA 336, applied
R v Isherwood[2005] QCA 251, cited
R v Rowton (1865) 169 ER 1497; [1865] EngR 53, cited

COUNSEL:

B J Power with I A Munsie for the appellant
S J Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

MacDonald Law for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P AND MULLINS JA: The appellant was convicted of one count of using electronic communication to procure a child under the age of 16 years, one count of possessing child exploitation material, 33 counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 years and one Commonwealth count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material. He appeals against his convictions on the basis that there has been a miscarriage of justice occasioned by the improper…

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 Wands

Details

AGLC: R v Wands [2021] QCA 238
Case: [2021] QCA 238
Decision Date: 9 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of various sexual offences, following his engagement in email, text message, and video conversations with a 14-year-old girl residing in Scotland. At the time of these events, the appellant was employed as a primary school teacher. The trial was conducted in the Supreme Court of the state, and the appellant subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal. The appeal raised two primary grounds: first, the admission of evidence concerning the appellant's failure to comply with the standards imposed by the College of Teachers, and second, the conduct of the prosecutor during the closing address.

The court considered whether the primary judge erred in admitting evidence about the appellant’s non-compliance with professional standards set by the College of Teachers. The appellant argued that this evidence was prejudicial and not relevant to the charges. Additionally, the court examined whether the prosecutor’s closing address contained impermissible submissions that were contrary to the judge's rulings, not supported by the evidence, and prejudicial. The appellant claimed that these submissions contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found no error in the admission of the evidence regarding the appellant's professional standards. The court held that this evidence was relevant to the appellant's credibility and the nature of the interactions with the victim. Furthermore, the court concluded that the prosecutor’s submissions, while some were impermissible, did not prejudice the appellant to the extent of causing a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the conviction.

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.

CITATION:	R v Wands [2021] QCA 238
PARTIES:	R v WANDS, Jarred Lee (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 296 of 2020 DC No 190 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 19 November 2020 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	9 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 August 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Mullins JA and Crow J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences arising from the appellant engaging in email, text message, and video conversations with a 14 year old girl who lived in Scotland – where the appellant was employed as a primary school teacher at the time – where the learned primary judge admitted evidence of the appellant’s failure to comply with standards imposed on teachers by the College of Teachers – whether the learned primary judge erred in admitting such evidence – whether the admission of such evidence and the prosecution’s reliance on it caused a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTION – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences arising from the appellant engaging in email, text message, and video conversations with a 14 year old girl who lived in Scotland – where, in the Crown closing address, the learned prosecutor made three impermissible submissions – where the appellant submits that the three submissions were contrary to rulings of the primary judge, contrary to the evidence, and irrelevant and prejudicial, respectively – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s closing address caused a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 218A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15 Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353; [1960] HCA 15, cited Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 635, applied Maxwell v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 309, cited R v Fricker (1986) 42 SASR 436, cited R v Gathercole[2016] QCA 336, applied R v Isherwood[2005] QCA 251, cited R v Rowton (1865) 169 ER 1497; [1865] EngR 53, cited
COUNSEL:	B J Power with I A Munsie for the appellant S J Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	MacDonald Law for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent