Court of Appeal

R v Carter [2014] QCA 120 ; [2014] 21 QLR; (2014) 241 A Crim R 522 (14/0066) Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J 27 May 2014

Full-text: QCA14-120.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the applicant argued that the verdict was unreasonable due to inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence and other evidence – whether there is doubt in the appellate court – whether jury’s advantage in seeing and hearing evidence is capable of resolving the doubt experienced by the appellate court

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the applicant argued that a verdict of guilty on the assault count was inconsistent with a verdict of not guilty on a count of dangerous operation of a vehicle – whether there was a necessary inconsistency between the two verdicts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found not guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and guilty of assault – where the appellant argued that the acquittal on the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle count was a result of the jury rejecting the complainant’s evidence on that count – whether the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury that if it entertained a reasonable doubt concerning the truthfulness or reliability of the complainant’s evidence in relation to one or more of the counts of the indictment that doubt must be taken into account in assessing the overall truthfulness or reliability of the complainant’s evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where a female child gave evidence in accordance with s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where the female child had a support person under s 21AV of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where the trial judge referred to the support person as an “adult present” rather than a “support person” – whether that direction was inconsistent with s 21AW and was therefore an error of law

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where the trial judge made an error of law in failing to give a direction in compliance with s 21AW of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where the child’s evidence tended to exculpate the applicant – where there was no possibility that the jury would consider the support person to be someone who may have coached, intimidated or some way affected the child in a way to change the weight they would otherwise have given to the child’s evidence – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS OF INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of assault – where the sentence imposed was 18 months imprisonment, suspended after eight months served with an operational period of 18 months – where the applicant was a participant in a larger endeavour designed to recover his co defendant’s children from the custody of her ex-partner – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, in the circumstances