Legal Research
Cases
Woods (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Woods (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 105 27 April 2021

Appeal

Expert Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Miscarriage of Justice

Voluntary, Conscious, Deliberate and Intentional Act

Extension of Time

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0248

ROBERT WOODS (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victim of the sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the names of the applicant and of family members of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	KAYE and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 April 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 105
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 547 (Judge Lyon)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of one charge of incest –Whether prosecutor’s address to jury reversed onus of proof – Whether evidence of deterioration in complainant’s behaviour post-abuse was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial – Whether trial judge should have directed jury that commission by the applicant of the charged act was required to be voluntary, conscious, deliberate and intentional – Expert evidence adduced as to counter-intuitive behaviour of abused children – Whether expert evidence regarding conduct of complainant admissible – Whether miscarriage of justice – Whether jury verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed – R v AJS (2006) 12 VR 563, MG v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 305 distinguished.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Procedure – Application for extension of time to file application for leave to appeal against conviction – Two grounds of appeal reasonably arguable – Extension of time granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Dr M FitzGerald	Doogue + George Defence Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KAYE JA
NIALL JA:

The applicant was convicted by the jury empanelled on his trial of one charge of incest. After a plea that was presented on his behalf, on 1 May 2020, the applicant was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal the conviction, and in order to do so, he seeks an extension of time within which to make that application.

The proposed application for leave to appeal contained seven grounds. At the commencement of oral argument, counsel for the applicant abandoned the first ground. The remaining six grounds are as follows:

2.The submission by the prosecutor in the final address that the jury was not provided with any material on the issue of erectile dysfunction ‘other than what was in the record of interview’ has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice because it had a tendency to reverse the onus of proof.
3.A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because of the adducing of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence.

PARTICULARS
[Alice’s] evidence that the complainant’s behaviour had deteriorated in the two year period after the allegations.
4.A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because of the failure of the trial judge to provide the jury with the following directions of law:
(A)That the act of the applicant of…

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 Woods (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Woods (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 105
Case: [2021] VSCA 105
Decision Date: 27 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an appeal by Woods against their conviction for incest, with the appeal being heard in the court. Woods challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including the prosecutor’s address to the jury, the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence, the trial judge’s direction to the jury, and the potential for a miscarriage of justice. The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the prosecutor’s address to the jury reversed the onus of proof, whether certain evidence was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial, the necessity for the trial judge to direct the jury on the voluntary and intentional nature of the act, and the admissibility of expert evidence regarding the conduct of the complainant.

The court examined the prosecutor’s address to the jury and concluded it did not reverse the onus of proof. It found that evidence of the complainant’s behaviour post-abuse was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also determined that the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the voluntary and intentional nature of the act, and that expert evidence regarding the conduct of abused children was admissible. The court ultimately held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The court also granted an extension of time for Woods to file the application for leave to appeal, as two grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal and grant the extension of time. The decision distinguished the cases of R v AJS and MG v The Queen, emphasising that the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of merit in the grounds presented by Woods.

Orders