William James (a pseudonym)[1] v The King - [2024] VSCA 114

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0034

WILLIAM JAMES (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]To avoid the possibility of identifying the alleged victim of a sexual offence, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, PRIEST and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 May 2024
DATE OF REASONS:	30 May 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 114
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [James] [2023] VCC 150 (Judge Hawkins)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape, intentionally causing injury and common assault – Whether judge’s answer to jury question as to dates caused miscarriage of justice – Whether impermissible for complainant in re-examination to read whole police statement aloud after cross-examination on part of contents – Whether verdicts inconsistent or unsafe and unsatisfactory – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr R Barton
Respondent:		Mr R Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Peter Baker & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
PRIEST JA
KAYE JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court charged the applicant with intentionally causing injury[2] (one charge – charge 1); common assault[3] (four charges – charges 2, 4, 7 and 9); rape[4] (three charges – charges 3, 6 and 8); and making a threat to kill[5] (one charge – charge 5).
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 18. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Contrary to common law. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Crimes Act 1958, s 38 (as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[5]Crimes Act 1958, s 20. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
Following a trial, the jury empanelled to try the applicant found him guilty of charge 1, and charges 6, 7, 8 and 9, but found him not guilty on charges 3, 4 and 5.[6]
[6]Subsequently, the judge sentenced the applicant to 12 months’ imprisonment on charge 1 (intentionally causing injury); 9 years’ imprisonment on each of charges 6 and 8 (rape); and 6 months’ imprisonment on each of charges 7 and 9 (common assault). Orders for cumulation resulted in a total effective sentence of 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on charges 6, 7, 8 and 9,[7] relying on three proposed grounds:
1    The learned trial judge erred in her answer to a question of the jury about the dates relating to evidence of the alleged offending on Charges 8 and 9.
2    The verdicts on charges 8 and 9 are unsafe and unsatisfactory and are inconsistent with the acquittals on charges 3 and 4.
3    The trial of charges 6 and 7 miscarried by the complainant reading her police statement 5…

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 William James (a pseudonym)[1] v The King

Details

AGLC: William James (a pseudonym)[1] v The King [2024] VSCA 114
Case: [2024] VSCA 114
Decision Date: 27 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of William James (a pseudonym) v The King, the appellant, William James, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for rape, intentionally causing injury, and common assault. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, with the respondent being the King, represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The case involved a dispute over the handling of jury questions, the admissibility of evidence during re-examination, and the consistency and safety of the jury's verdicts.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge's response to a jury question regarding the dates of the alleged offences caused a miscarriage of justice, whether it was permissible for the complainant to read her entire police statement during re-examination after being cross-examined on parts of it, and whether the verdicts were inconsistent or unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant argued that the judge's answer to the jury's question was misleading and prejudicial, that the complainant's reading of the entire police statement was improper, and that the verdicts were inconsistent and not based on sufficient evidence.

The High Court found that the trial judge's response to the jury's question was not such as to cause a miscarriage of justice, as it did not mislead or prejudice the jury. The court also held that it was not improper for the complainant to read her entire police statement during re-examination, as it was within the trial judge's discretion to allow this. The court further determined that the verdicts were neither inconsistent nor unsafe and unsatisfactory, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. As a result, the High Court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence for the offences of rape, intentionally causing injury, and common assault. The court found that the trial judge's handling of the jury's question, the complainant's reading of her police statement during re-examination, and the consistency and safety of the verdicts did not warrant an appeal. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Orders