JUDGES	ASHLEY, REDLICH and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	6 and 8 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28 June 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 147
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v RR (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, dated 29 November 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Stalking – Whether verdicts of guilty on two charges unreasonable or could not be supported on the evidence – Whether evidence enabled jury to find that appellant intended to cause complainant ‘mental harm’ – Whether ‘mental harm’ confined to medically diagnosed mental condition – Whether, in respect of one charge, posting many identical letters to different addressees on one occasion enabled jury to conclude that appellant had engaged in a ‘course of conduct’ – Whether judge impermissibly enlarged Crown case – Whether, if so, serious miscarriage of justice established – Convictions affirmed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Making false document – Whether verdict of guilty unreasonable or could not be supported on the evidence – Whether open to jury to conclude that appellant intended recipients of false document to treat it as genuine and by reason of doing so act to complainant’s economic prejudice – Possible relevance of recipients in fact realising that document was false – Conviction affirmed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Two charges of assault and two charges of obstruct police – Direction which left open risk that jury would find appellant guilty of all charges only in reliance upon evidence of assaults – Convictions on charges of obstruct police quashed.

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 21A, 31(1)(b)(i), 83A.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Delay – Manifest excess – No substance to grounds – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms C Boston	Valos Black & Associates
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd SC with Mr G Barr	Mr Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

RR appeals by leave against his conviction in the County Court, on 3 October 2011, of eight offences, and against sentence imposed on 29 November 2011. The offences of which the appellant was convicted, and the sentences imposed, were as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Stalking
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
s 21A]

10 years

2 years
6 months

12 months

2

Make false document
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 83A(1)]

10 years

2 years
6 months

N/A

3

Stalking

10 years

4 years
6 months

Base

4

Possess child pornography
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 70(1)]

5 years

6 months

2 months

5

Assault police
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
s 31(1)(b)(i)]

5 years

4 months

2 months

6

Obstruct police
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
s 31(1)(b)(i)]

5 years

4 months

N/A

7

Assault police

5 years

4 months

2 months

8

Obstruct police

5 years

4 months

NA

Total Effective Sentence:

6 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period:

4 years

Pre-sentence Detention…

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 RR v The Queen

Details

AGLC: R R v the Queen [2013] VSCA 147
Case: [2013] VSCA 147
Decision Date: 28 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, RR, was convicted of multiple criminal offences and appealed against his convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of Victoria examined the sufficiency of the evidence, the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The court considered whether the verdicts of guilty on stalking and making a false document were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, it assessed whether the evidence allowed the jury to find that the appellant intended to cause mental harm and whether the definition of mental harm was confined to medically diagnosed conditions. The court also examined whether the appellant's posting of many identical letters to different addressees on one occasion enabled the jury to conclude that he engaged in a 'course of conduct'. Furthermore, the court reviewed whether the judge improperly expanded the Crown's case and whether this resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. The court affirmed the convictions but quashed the convictions for obstructing police.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts of guilty for stalking and making a false document. The court considered whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant intended to cause mental harm and whether the concept of mental harm was limited to medically diagnosed conditions. The court also examined whether the appellant's conduct constituted a 'course of conduct' and whether the trial judge had improperly expanded the Crown's case. Additionally, the court assessed whether the jury's potential reliance on the evidence of assaults to convict the appellant of obstructing police resulted in an improper direction that risked an unfair conviction. Finally, the court reviewed the sentences imposed to determine whether there was a manifest excess or any other grounds for appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the verdicts of guilty on stalking and making a false document were supported by the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant intended to cause mental harm, even if it was not medically diagnosed. The court also determined that the appellant's conduct constituted a 'course of conduct' and that the trial judge did not improperly expand the Crown's case. However, the court quashed the convictions for obstructing police due to the risk that the jury may have relied solely on the evidence of assaults to convict the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal against the sentences, finding no manifest excess or other grounds for appeal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the appellant's convictions for stalking, making a false document, and assault but quashed the convictions for obstructing police. The court dismissed the appeal against the sentences, finding no manifest excess or other grounds for appeal. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that jury verdicts are supported by sufficient evidence and that trial judges provide proper directions to the jury. The court's determination regarding the quashing of the convictions for obstructing police highlights the need for careful consideration of the evidence and the risks of unfair convictions when multiple charges are involved.

Orders