Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-08-31|Before: Williams JA, Byrne J, Dutney JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, Williams JA and Dutney J concurring as to the order made, Byrne J dissenting
Williams JA, Byrne J, Dutney JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, Williams JA and Dutney J concurring as to the order made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –
UNREASONABLE OR
INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - whether or not facts establish rape within s 347
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –UNREASONABLE ORINSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - whether or not facts establish rape within s 347Criminal Code as at 18 August 1996 –where appellant unlawfully entereddwelling house of complainant and where complainant mistakenly believed she washaving sex withher partner – whether carnal knowledge was “withoutthat person's consent” – whether identity of male relevanttoconsentCriminal Code s 347, s 348(1), s 348(2)The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1989, s 31Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (Imp)CriminalLaw Amendment Act 2000 (Qld)McConville v Bayley [1914] HCA 14(1914) 17 CLR509, consideredMalika Holdings Pty Ltd v Stretton (2001) 75 ALJR 626, citedMellifont v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [1991] HCA 53(1991) 173 CLR
289, cited Papadimitropoulos v The Queen [1957] HCA 74
(1957) 98 CLR
249, appliedR v Barrow (1868) LR 1 CCR 156, consideredR v
Burles [1947] VicLawRp 58
(1947) VLR 392, citedR v Case (1850) 4 Cox CC 220,
citedR v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, consideredR v Cuerrier
[1998] 2 SCR 371, consideredR v Dee (1884) 15 Cox CC 579,
citedR v Elbekkay [1994] EWCA Crim 1
[1995] Crim L R 163, consideredR v
Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410, citedR v Fletcher (1859) 8 Cox CC 131,
consideredR v Gallienne [1964] NSWR 919, citedR v I A Shaw
[1995] QCA 45
[1996] 1 Qd R 641, appliedR v Jackson [1822] EngR 90
[1822] Russ & Ry 487
168
ER 911, consideredR v Jones (1861) 4 LT(OS) 154, citedR v
Kake [1960] NZPoliceLawRp 5
[1960] NZLR 595, citedR v Lambert [1919] ArgusLawRp 8
(1919) VLR 205,
consideredR v Linekar [1994] EWCA Crim 2
[1995] QB 250, citedR v Mayers
[1872] 12 Cox CC 311, considered
R v Merembu Bongab [1971-72] P & NGLR 433,
disapprovedR v Morgan [1975] UKHL 3
[1976] AC 182, consideredR
v P S Shaw [1994] QCA 551
[1995] 2 Qd R 97, consideredR v Richardson [1999] QB
444, consideredR v Saunders [1837] EngR 210
[1838] 8 Car & P 266
173 ER 488,
consideredR v T [1996] QCA 258
[1997] 1 Qd R 623, citedR v Williams
[1839] EngR 249
[1838] 8 Car & P 286
173 ER 497, consideredR v Williams [1923] 1
KB 340, citedR v Young [1878] 38 LT 540
14 Cox CC 114,
considered
Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Ploner [1991] 1 Qd R 69,
citedThe Queen v L [1991] HCA 48
(1991) 174 CLR 379, cited
Judgment (34 paragraphs)
[1]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - whether or not facts establish rape within s 347 Criminal Code as at 18 August 1996 - where appellant unlawfully entered dwelling house of complainant and where complainant mistakenly believed she was having sex with her partner - whether carnal knowledge was "without that person's consent" - whether identity of male relevant to consent
[2]
The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1989, s 31