R v WAP - [2012] QCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WAP [2012] QCA 64

PARTIES:

R
v
WAP
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 95 of 2011
DC No 555 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2012

JUDGE:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Applegarth 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of committing various sexual offences against his two children – where the appellant disagreed with the manner in which his counsel conducted his trial – where the appellant cross-examined his former barrister on appeal regarding this conduct – where the appellant applied for leave to adduce further oral evidence – whether leave should be granted to allow the defendant to adduce such evidence – whether the appellant was bound by the conduct of his counsel

Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9, considered
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677, considered
R v Vollmer [2011] QCA 355, cited
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Muir JA’s reasons for dismissing this appeal.

The essence of the self-represented appellant’s many complaints is that, having been convicted, he regrets the way his case was conducted at trial. He wants a retrial so that he can conduct it differently.

His complex conspiracy allegations, which he now contends his trial barrister should have put to the prosecution witnesses, are extraordinary. They are that the complainants and their mother gave false evidence against him so as to gain access to about $120 million which should have come to the appellant through a patented invention. The many other witnesses who gave damning evidence against him at trial were part of this conspiracy for various reasons, including to gain access to his patent money. This was why his elderly mother was murdered in hospital. The witnesses, AC and DC, and KS and TS, gave false testimony because the appellant had informed on them in respect of drug matters when they lived in northern New South Wales long ago. KS and TS were friendly with CAM and CLM, who gave false evidence to cover up a pornographic video in which KS was involved. JG and BG were friendly with the complainants. They gave false evidence to assist the complainants and also to themselves benefit from the patent fortune.

The appellant produced no evidence to prove any aspects of his conspiracy theory. He did not…

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 WAP

Details

AGLC: R v WAP [2012] QCA 64
Case: [2012] QCA 64
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, WAP, was convicted following a trial for committing various sexual offences against his two children. The appellant disagreed with the manner in which his counsel conducted the trial, particularly in relation to the cross-examination of witnesses. On appeal, the appellant sought leave to adduce further oral evidence regarding the alleged failings of his counsel. The central issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to allow the appellant to adduce such evidence, considering whether the appellant was bound by the conduct of his counsel.

The court considered the principles of legal representation and the appellant's right to a fair trial. It was noted that the appellant had not raised any objections or points regarding the conduct of his counsel during the trial. The court emphasised that it is not permissible for an appellant to challenge the conduct of their own counsel for the first time on appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant departing from the general rule. The court also noted that the appellant had been legally represented and had the opportunity to instruct his counsel on the manner in which to conduct the trial.

Consequently, the court held that the appellant was bound by the conduct of his counsel, and the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court did not grant leave to adduce further oral evidence, as it found that the appellant's dissatisfaction with his counsel's conduct did not constitute grounds for setting aside the conviction. The court concluded that the appellant's appeal was without merit and affirmed the conviction.

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 WAP [2012] QCA 64
PARTIES:	R v WAP (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2011 DC No 555 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2012
JUDGE:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Applegarth 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of committing various sexual offences against his two children – where the appellant disagreed with the manner in which his counsel conducted his trial – where the appellant cross-examined his former barrister on appeal regarding this conduct – where the appellant applied for leave to adduce further oral evidence – whether leave should be granted to allow the defendant to adduce such evidence – whether the appellant was bound by the conduct of his counsel Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9, considered R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677, considered R v Vollmer [2011] QCA 355, cited TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, followed
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent