R v Yeo - [2002] QCA 383

[2002] QCA 383
COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
HELMAN J
JONES J

CA No 129 of 2002

THE QUEEN

RAYMOND YEO Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/09/2002

JUDGMENT

APPELLANT conducted his own case

MR M J COPLEY (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant was convicted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child with a circumstance of aggravation - one offence on 6 May 2000 and the other on 17 May 2000 - and acquitted on three counts of indecent treatment of a child with circumstances of aggravation allegedly committed on 6 May 2000.

The grounds of appeal in the notice concerned alleged inconsistency between the verdict of conviction and acquittal and as to the acceptability of the complainant's evidence on the counts which resulted in conviction. The convictions relate to counts 1 and 5, the acquittals to counts 2 to 4.

The appellant met the family of the two male complainant children when both parties resided in different parts of the same caravan park in 1999. The offences subject to counts 1 to 4 were said to have occurred on Saturday, 6 May 2000. The appellant drove the complainant's mother and their elder brother to a park under the Indooroopilly Bridge. There they met with the complainants and their father, and the family proceeded to fish from a pontoon on the river bank.

Count 1 involved JA who was born on 3 May 1994. He was then just six years old. In a tape-recorded interview with the police tendered at the trial, the boy said that when he was fishing the appellant touched him "in the nuts". He said his mother was next to him when this occurred. He was touched under his pants. The police officer who conducted the interview said that the boy pointed to his groin area.

The boy's mother said that on that day she, the boy and the appellant were all on the pontoon. At one point, the boy was sitting right beside the appellant and the appellant was cuddling the boy. It was not a cold day. At about 5.30 p.m., the fishing ended and JA travelled home in his parent's vehicle.

The second complainant, to whom I will refer as BL, and the eldest brother D travelled home with the appellant in his vehicle. The events in the appellant's vehicle on the trip home formed the basis of counts 2, 3 and 4.

BL was born on 30 October 1991. He was aged eight years old on 6 May 2000. In an interview the police conducted with the boy on 18 May 2000, BL alleged that on the way home from fishing he sat in the front seat of the appellant's vehicle and D sat in the back behind him. On three occasions during that trip home, the appellant touched him "in a rude part" which he further described as "the part where you do a wee out of".

Under cross-examination,…

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 Yeo

Details

AGLC: R v Yeo [2002] QCA 383
Case: [2002] QCA 383
Decision Date: 25/09/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Yeo, the appellant was convicted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child with circumstances of aggravation, while being acquitted on three other counts of the same charge. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appellant met the family of the two male complainant children when both parties resided in different parts of the same caravan park in 1999. The offences were said to have occurred on 6 May 2000 and 17 May 2000. The appellant argued that there was an inconsistency between the verdict of conviction and acquittal and that the complainant's evidence was not acceptable on the counts which resulted in conviction. The court had to decide whether the jury was correct in convicting the appellant on counts 1 and 5 but acquitting him on counts 2 to 4, and whether the complainant's evidence was clear and precise enough to convict the appellant. The court found that the jury was properly instructed to consider each count separately and that the different verdicts were likely due to the unsatisfactory evidence given by BL, one of the complainants, under cross-examination. The court also found that JA's evidence was clear and precise, and that a reasonable jury should have accepted his evidence and proceeded to convict. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the sentences to which he was currently subject, considering his prior criminal history.

Orders