UQ v The Queen - [2019] ACTCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	UQ v The Queen
Citation:	[2019] ACTCA 23
Hearing Date:	5 August 2019
DecisionDate:	12 September 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ, Burns and Wigney JJ
Decision:	Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – Jury direction – Where the accused was charged with multiple sexual offences involving several complainants – Where the complainants were cross-examined about whether they had motive to lie – Whether the prosecution invited the jury to speculate about whether the complainants had motive to lie – Whether the trial judge failed to give appropriate direction about onus of proof regarding alleged motive to lie – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice.
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5531
Cases Cited:	Adams v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 303 BI v The Queen (No 2) [2018] ACTCA 11 Brown v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 306 Doe v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 203; 187 A Crim R 328 Greenhalgh v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 94 Hoyle v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 42; 339 FLR 11 MAJW v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 255 Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11 Palmer v The Queen [1998] HCA 2; 193 CLR 1 Popovic v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 202 R v Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520 South v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 117
Parties:	UQ (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel B Morrisroe (Appellant) M Jones (Respondent)
Solicitors Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 46 of 2018
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Elkaim J Date of Decision: 25 July 2018 Case Title: R v UQ Court File Number: SCC 226 of 2017

The Court

The Appeal

On 25 July 2018, a jury found that the appellant was guilty of 14 sexual offences. The offences related to three complainants: the appellant’s future stepdaughter (KT), his future stepson (LT), and his biological daughter (BQ). The complainants were the children of MI, who was in a relationship with the appellant between 1986 and September 2000. In 1994, the appellant and MI had a second child, TQ.

At the trial, the appellant gave evidence and denied all relevant conduct, including the uncharged acts upon which the prosecution relied as tendency and context evidence.

The complainants were cross-examined about whether they had a particular motive or motives to lie and each denied the proposed motive/s.

The appellant appealed on the ground (or interrelated grounds) that the trial had miscarried because, in closing, the prosecutor had invited the jury to speculate about whether the complainants had a motive to lie, and the trial judge had failed to adequately correct the error in the prosecutor’s address.

Rule 5531

Rule 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) requires leave to argue a ground of appeal concerning a trial judge’s directions in circumstances where no objection was taken to the direction at the time of the trial.

At 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 UQ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: UQ v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 23
Case: [2019] ACTCA 23
Decision Date: 12 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for multiple sexual offences involving several complainants. The appellant, UQ, sought to appeal against this conviction. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Burns and Wigney JJ.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the prosecution had improperly invited the jury to speculate about the complainants' motives to lie, and whether the trial judge had failed to provide an adequate direction to the jury regarding the onus of proof in relation to any alleged motive to lie. The Court was also required to consider whether these issues, if established, amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal considered the cross-examination of the complainants regarding their alleged motives to lie and the directions given by the trial judge. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Court concluded that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.