RJP v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 443

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0855
RJP	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	REDLICH JA, COGHLAN and MACAULAY AJJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	30 May 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16 December 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 443
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v [RJP] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Taft, 5 October 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Sexual Offences – Children – Evidence – Coincidence evidence – Whether judge erred in direction on the cross-admissibility of the complainants’ evidence – Whether judge erred in direction on probability reasoning – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	C Marshall & Associates
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

I agree with Coghlan AJA that the complainants' evidence did not demonstrate underlying unity. It lacked those necessary features as would permit improbability of co-incidence reasoning. The directions given to the jury were insufficient for the reasons explained by Coghlan AJA. I therefore agree that leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed and the convictions quashed. I would order a retrial.

COGHLAN AJA:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on 15 counts of sexual offences against four complainants. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 14 years, six months and a period of 10 years, six months was fixed before he would be eligible for parole.

The conviction related to offending between January 1986 and December 1997.

Two convictions related to the complainant, SK; two convictions related to the complainant, JR; ten convictions related to the complainant, FR; and one conviction related to the complainant, ES.

Although a number of grounds are set out in the Full Statement of Grounds, only Grounds 4 and 5 were argued before the Court. Leave was sought to add an additional ground.

Grounds 4 and 5 are as follows:

4.The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning the cross-admissibility of the evidence given by the Complainants,
5.The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning ‘probability reasoning’.

The proposed ground 6 is that:

6.The learned trial judge erred in ruling that the evidence of each complainant was cross-admissible.

The question of cross-admissibility is at the heart of this application.

It is therefore necessary to set out in some detail the evidence from which common features could be distilled. I will first of all deal with the counts on which the applicant was convicted as it relates to each complainant. In summary form, they are as follows:

Complainant SK:

The counts were alleged to have been committed between 1 January and 31 December 1986 when the complainant was about four years of age.

SK and her mother were boarders with the applicant and his former wife. One night the applicant baby-sat SK when her mother and his wife were out together. 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 RJP v The Queen

Details

AGLC: RJP v The Queen [2011] VSCA 443
Case: [2011] VSCA 443
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in RJP v The Queen involved the appellant, RJP, who had been convicted by a jury of multiple counts of sexual offences against children. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, primarily focusing on the judge's directions to the jury regarding the admissibility and weight of the complainants' evidence.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury about the cross-admissibility of the complainants' evidence and whether the judge erred in the direction concerning probability reasoning. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury on the necessity to consider the coincidence of the complainants' accounts and the appropriate application of probability reasoning in evaluating the evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trial judge did indeed err in the directions provided to the jury. The judge failed to adequately explain the importance of the coincidence of the complainants' evidence and did not properly guide the jury on the application of probability reasoning. The court concluded that these errors were significant and prejudicial, as they could have influenced the jury's assessment of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered. The court emphasized the importance of clear and accurate jury directions in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving sensitive and complex evidence such as that in sexual offence cases.

Orders