R v Yeo - [2001] QCA 368

[2001] QCA 368

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
WILSON J

CA No 108 of 2001

THE QUEEN

RAYMOND YEO Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 06/09/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 4 April this year on 13 counts involving sexual offences against two young boys; one aged 11, the other nine.

Those offences were five of indecent dealing with the first of these children, four of indecent dealing with the second of them, one of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with by the first child, one of wilfully exposing himself to that child, one of permitting himself to be unlawfully dealt with by the second child and one of wilfully exposing himself to the second child. All offences occurred between June and October 1999.

The appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe for two reasons; the first because of inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses and the second because of the absence or inadequacy of forensic evidence. At his trial, which took place over three days, he was represented by counsel. However, he has conducted his own appeal.

Some relevant facts were undisputed. The appellant shared a house with another man, R during 1999. Two of R’s children, the first complainant and a girl, also resided in that house. Then from 19 June 1999 a woman and her daughter also resided there. She commenced a relationship with R and eventually married him.

When this woman moved into the house the first complainant moved in to share a bedroom with the appellant. According to him, at and shortly after this time the appellant commenced to commit sexual offences against him. The complainant at that time was aged 11.

A short time later the second complainant, then aged nine, commenced staying at the house from time to time. When he did so he shared the bedroom with the appellant and the first complainant. Thereafter, according to both of them the appellant commenced committing sexual offences on both of them. The offences, each of them said, occurred in that room.

At the trial statements from each of the complainants pursuant to section 93A, consisting of video recorded interviews, were tendered in evidence and each of them gave oral evidence. Their evidence was corroborated by evidence from the first complainant's sister and the daughter of the woman, already referred to, who had also moved into the house, that each of them had heard protests from one or other of the boys emanating from the appellant's room. The second of these girls also gave evidence of hearing the appellant's door being locked after the appellant and the two complainants had gone into the room. Both complainants said that the appellant had given them cigarettes and the first complainant also said that he had given him money.

The appellant himself gave evidence denying that any of the offences had occurred. Plainly the jury rejected his evidence and accepted that of the complainants,…

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 [2001] QCA 368
Case: [2001] QCA 368
Decision Date: 6 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Raymond Yeo, appeals against his conviction for multiple sexual offences against two young boys. The appellant was convicted on 13 counts involving indecent dealing, permitting himself to be indecently dealt with, and wilfully exposing himself to the boys, one aged 11 and the other nine, between June and October 1999. The appeal is based on the grounds that the verdict was unsafe due to inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and the absence of forensic evidence.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the jury's verdict was safe and reliable. The appellant argued that inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainants and the lack of forensic evidence undermined the credibility of their accounts. The court examined the evidence provided by the two complainants, who testified that the offences occurred in the presence of both boys. The court also considered the corroborative evidence from two girls who heard protests from the room where the offences allegedly took place.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the complainants was consistent and reliable despite minor discrepancies. The court held that the jury was entitled to accept their evidence and reject the appellant's denials. The court further found that the absence of forensic evidence did not affect the safety of the jury's verdict, as the medical evidence was neutral and did not support or disprove the allegations. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence presented.

The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, affirming the conviction of Raymond Yeo on all 13 counts of sexual offences against the two young boys. The decision upheld the jury's verdict, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders