R v Wickson - [2007] QCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wickson [2007] QCA 104

PARTIES:

R
v
WICKSON, Graham Charles
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 314 of 2006
DC No 1011 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Holmes JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where similar fact evidence of three complainants was admitted by the trial judge – where a direction was issued to the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account – whether the trial judge was required to give a specific warning regarding the risk of concoction

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 597A(1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132A

Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292, distinguished
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, applied
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, applied
MWJ v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 329, cited
R v Hooper[1999] QCA 310, CA No 37 of 1999, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne for the appellant
R J Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MCMURDO P: The appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Keane JA.

KEANE JA: On 1 November 2006, the appellant was convicted after a trial by a jury in the District Court of six counts of indecent dealing with a boy under 16 years of age and one count of indecent dealing with a boy under 14 years of age. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment totalling four years.

The appellant contends that the convictions should be set aside on the following ground:

"The trial judge, having admitted evidence as similar fact evidence, failed to direct the jury that they could not use the evidence of the complaints in combination unless they were satisfied that there was no real risk that the evidence was untrue by reason of concoction."

The course of proceedings

The charges of indecent dealing related to incidents which were alleged to have occurred in the period between 10 August 1974 and 29 September 1978. There were three complainants – M, S and O – each of whom gave evidence. The Crown also called MG who gave evidence that the appellant had dealt indecently with him in about 1978.

In the mid-1970s, each of the complainants and MG had been friends, and members of a cadet unit and a martial arts group. In each of these groups, the appellant was a senior figure in the period between 1974 and 1978. The…

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 Wickson

Details

AGLC: R v Wickson [2007] QCA 104
Case: [2007] QCA 104
Decision Date: 30 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wickson, the appellant was convicted of several sexual offences and appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred by admitting similar fact evidence of three complainants without giving a specific warning to the jury about the risk of concoction. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge was required to give a specific warning to the jury about the risk of concoction when admitting similar fact evidence. The appellant argued that the judge should have directed the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account before considering the similar fact evidence. The court examined the principles governing the admission of similar fact evidence and the circumstances in which a warning about the risk of concoction is necessary.

The court considered that the trial judge had properly directed the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account before considering the similar fact evidence. It held that the trial judge was not required to give a specific warning about the risk of concoction, as the directions given were sufficient to ensure that the jury would not improperly consider the similar fact evidence. The court found that the trial judge's directions adequately protected the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

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 Wickson [2007] QCA 104
PARTIES:	R v WICKSON, Graham Charles (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 314 of 2006 DC No 1011 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Holmes JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where similar fact evidence of three complainants was admitted by the trial judge – where a direction was issued to the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account – whether the trial judge was required to give a specific warning regarding the risk of concoction Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 597A(1) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132A Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292, distinguished Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, applied MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, applied MWJ v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 329, cited R v Hooper[1999] QCA 310, CA No 37 of 1999, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne for the appellant R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent