R v Watson

Case [2017] QCA 82

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Watson [2017] QCA 82

PARTIES:

R
v
WATSON, Steven Gary
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 317 of 2016
DC No 328 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Conviction: 18 November 2016; Date of Sentence: 21 November 2016

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Applegarth J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care – where the conduct in question involved the appellant touching the complainant on the outside of her clothing – where the appellant submits that the jury should not have found that the conduct amounted to a sexual relationship

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was indicted on five counts relating to the same child – where the appellant was convicted of three counts and acquitted of two counts relating to that child – where the appellant submits that the jury’s finding of guilt on three counts was inconsistent with the jury not accepting that same complainant’s evidence on the two other counts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE TRIALS AND ELECTION – where the appellant made an application for separate trials under s 597A(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the application was dismissed – where the appellant submits that the counts relating to each complainant should have been severed because the evidence of each complainant was inadmissible to prove the counts relating to each of the other complainants – where the appellant submits that he was unduly prejudiced in his defence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of two years and six months imprisonment on each of the four other counts – where the appellant submits that lesser sentences were imposed in analogous cases

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 229B, s 567(2), s 597A(1), s 597A(1AA), s 668E(1)

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, cited
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; [1988] HCA 50, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited

Continue reading R v Watson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Watson [2017] QCA 82
Case
[2017] QCA 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Watson, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Queensland on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under his care. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including the argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, inconsistent verdicts, and that the trial judge should have severed the counts relating to each complainant. The appellant also appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. The court examined the evidence presented at trial, including the complainant's testimony and the appellant's defence, and found that the jury was entitled to conclude that the appellant's conduct amounted to a sexual relationship and indecent treatment. The court also considered the appellant's argument regarding inconsistent verdicts, but found that there was no inconsistency in the jury's findings. The court further examined the appellant's argument regarding the trial judge's refusal to sever the counts, and found that the trial judge's decision was not an abuse of discretion.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court found that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the trial judge's handling of the proceedings. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant's sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of two years and six months imprisonment on each of the four other counts was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.