R v Wq - [2006] QCA 518

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WQ [2006] QCA 518

PARTIES:

R
v
WQ
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 137 of 2006
DC No 428 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2006

JUDGES:

Keane JA, White and Philip McMurdo JJ
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 - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - appellant convicted by jury of two counts of rape - two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age - one count of wilfully and unlawfully exposing a child under 16 years of age to an indecent act with a circumstance of aggravation in that the complainant was his son - appellant sentenced to seven years imprisonment for one count of rape and lesser concurrent terms for other offences - complainant previously abused by a male friend of the appellant - appellant pointed to alleged vagueness in details of the evidence - appellant complained about alleged discrepancies or inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence - appellant argued jury did not consider its verdict for a sufficient length of time - whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt

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 - SEXUAL OFFENCES - rape of a young teenage child by the child's father - no criminal history - 56 years of age - betrayal of trust - appellant aware of complainant having previously been subject to sexual abuse by another person - whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AM, s 21AW(2), s 93A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited
R v F [2001] QCA 416; CA No 90 of 2001, 1 October 2001, cited
R v P [2001] QCA 25; CA No 298 of 2000, 9 February 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

KEANE JA: On 23 May 2006, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of two counts of rape (counts 1 and 2), two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age (counts 3 and 4), and one count of wilfully and unlawfully exposing a child under 16 years of age to an…

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 Wq

Details

AGLC: R v Wq [2006] QCA 518
Case: [2006] QCA 518
Decision Date: 8 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the appellant, Wq, appealed against his conviction for two counts of rape, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age, and one count of exposing a child under 16 years of age to an indecent act, with an aggravating circumstance that the complainant was his son. The appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for one count of rape, with lesser concurrent terms for the other offences. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that there were alleged inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The court considered whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, given the alleged vagueness and inconsistencies in the evidence. The court found that the jury was properly directed and that the verdict was open to them based on the evidence presented. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given his age, lack of criminal history, and the betrayal of trust. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the court had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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 WQ [2006] QCA 518
PARTIES:	R v WQ (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 137 of 2006 DC No 428 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2006
JUDGES:	Keane JA, White and Philip McMurdo JJ 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 - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - appellant convicted by jury of two counts of rape - two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age - one count of wilfully and unlawfully exposing a child under 16 years of age to an indecent act with a circumstance of aggravation in that the complainant was his son - appellant sentenced to seven years imprisonment for one count of rape and lesser concurrent terms for other offences - complainant previously abused by a male friend of the appellant - appellant pointed to alleged vagueness in details of the evidence - appellant complained about alleged discrepancies or inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence - appellant argued jury did not consider its verdict for a sufficient length of time - whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt 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 - SEXUAL OFFENCES - rape of a young teenage child by the child's father - no criminal history - 56 years of age - betrayal of trust - appellant aware of complainant having previously been subject to sexual abuse by another person - whether sentence was manifestly excessive Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AM, s 21AW(2), s 93A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited R v F [2001] QCA 416; CA No 90 of 2001, 1 October 2001, cited R v P [2001] QCA 25; CA No 298 of 2000, 9 February 2001, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent