Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42 Date of Order: 22 June 1999 Date of Publication of Reasons: 2 September 1999 B59/1998
ORDER
Appeal allowed.
Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal made on 20 March 1998 and in lieu thereof order that the appeal against convictions be allowed.
That the convictions and sentences be quashed.
That there be a new trial of the appellant.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland
Representation:
A J Rafter for the appellant (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)
M J Byrne QC with C W Heaton for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Robinson v The Queen
Criminal law and procedure – Evidence – Sexual assault of child under 12 – Uncorroborated evidence of complainant – Necessity for warning by trial judge to jury.
Evidence – Criminal trial – Sexual assault of child under 12 – Uncorroborated evidence of complainant – Necessity for warning by trial judge to jury.
Criminal Code (Q), s 632.
GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ. The principal issue in this appeal concerns the meaning and effect of s 632 of the Criminal Code (Qld), which came into force on 1 July 1997, and which concerns warnings and comments by trial judges to juries.
Following a trial before Judge Healy QC and a jury, the appellant was convicted of two offences of unlawful anal intercourse with a child under the age of 12 years. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six years for each offence.
The appellant appealed against the convictions and sentences to the Queensland Court of Appeal[1]. By majority, the appeal was dismissed[2].
[1](1998) 102 A Crim R 89.
[2]Williams and Cullinane JJ, Lee J dissenting.
At the conclusion of the hearing of a further appeal to this Court, the Court made orders allowing the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and ordering that the appeal to that court against the convictions be allowed, quashing the convictions and sentences, and ordering a new trial of the appellant. The Court announced that it would give its reasons for those orders at a later time.
The alleged offences were said to have been committed one night in late October or early November 1993 at the home of the complainant at Willowbank. The complainant was a boy aged eight at the time of the alleged offences. He was 11 at the time of the trial. The appellant was 19 at the time of the alleged offences.
The evidence was brief. It was common ground that, on the evening in question, the complainant and the appellant were sleeping on mattresses in the garage of the complainant's home. The complainant was involved in the Joey…
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 Robinson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42
Case
[1999] HCA 42
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Robinson against his convictions for sexual assault of a child under 12. The central issue before the Court was the necessity for a trial judge to provide a warning to the jury regarding the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant in such cases.
The Court was required to determine whether the absence of a specific warning to the jury about the dangers of relying solely on the uncorroborated evidence of a child complainant in a sexual assault trial constituted a miscarriage of justice. This involved considering the evidentiary weight and reliability of such testimony and the role of the trial judge in guiding the jury.
The High Court held that in cases involving allegations of sexual assault of a child under 12, where the complainant's evidence is uncorroborated, it is a matter of law that the trial judge must warn the jury of the potential dangers of acting on that evidence alone. The Court reasoned that while there is no absolute rule requiring corroboration, the inherent vulnerability of child complainants and the nature of the alleged offences necessitate a judicial warning to ensure the jury properly assesses the evidence and avoids potential prejudice. The failure to provide such a warning was considered a significant error.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and sentences, and ordered a new trial for the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Appeal allowed.
2.
Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal made on 20 March 1998 and in lieu thereof order that the appeal against convictions be allowed.