Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-06-01|Before: McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made.
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL & NEW TRIAL & INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
– APPEAL & NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –
UNREASONABLE
OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL & NEW TRIAL & INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL & NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –UNREASONABLEOR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE– GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whereappeal against conviction of rape– whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and unable to besupported by the evidence– whether the complainant’s evidence wasinconsistent and inherently unreliable – whether the learned trial judgeerred in not exercising his discretion to allow cross-examination of thecomplainant concerning prior allegations of rape as conferredby s 4Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978.Criminal Law (SexualOffences) Act (Qld) 1978, s4 Bull v The Queen (2000) 171 ALR613, consideredHouse v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, considered
Judgment (1 paragraphs)
[1]
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent