Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-06-14|Before: McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mackenzie JSeparate, reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the, order made
McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mackenzie JSeparate, reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the, order made
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR
GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN FINDINGS OF
JURY – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS – PARTICULAR CASES -
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULARGROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCYBETWEEN FINDINGS OFJURY – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS – PARTICULAR CASES -where appellant convicted ontwo counts of rape and acquitted on two counts ofindecent treatment of a child under 16 - where appellant contends guiltyverdictson two counts of rape were inconsistent with acquittal on two counts ofindecent dealing – where logical explanation for thejury’sdiffering verdicts – where jury’s verdict of acquittal was not afinding that the complainant was dishonestor so inherently unreliable as toinevitably taint her credibility or reliability on the other countsEVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OFEVIDENCE – GENERALLY – CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT –OTHERPARTICULAR CASESAPPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR
GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST
EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF
EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED –
VERDICT NOT UNREASONABLE –
PARTICULAR CASES - where complainant alleged
for the first time uncharged acts of sexual interference including rape during
cross
examination – where primary judge brought to jury’s attention
that a finding that the complainant was lying about the
new allegations might
affect the view of her credibility on other issues – where cross
examination of the complainant raised
additional matters not previously
recounted – where matters were in the nature of further detail in response
to specific questions
rather than inconsistencies with earlier accounts - where
delay of almost five years in making the complaint – where no
corroboration
of the complainant’s evidence – where judge gave
adequate directions - where jury’s verdict not unsafe
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, consideredR v M
[2001] QCA 458, CA No 126 of 2001, 26 October 2001, consideredR v
Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290, File No 60678 of 2000, 1 August 2001,
consideredR v S [2002] QCA 167, CA No 307 of 2001, 22 March 2002,
considered
Judgment (1 paragraphs)
[1]
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
# R
Respondent/Defendant:
Gleadhill \[2002\] QCA 204
Cases Cited (1)
(1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204 - QCA 2002 case summary — Zoe