Quick Search

Queensland Judgments

[Full-text PDF] R v LR [2005] QCA 368; [2006]1 Qd R 435 (05/0122) Brisb McPherson JA Keane JA Douglas J 30/09/2005

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant was alleged to have committed six counts of rape - where these rapes were alleged to have occurred after the appellant and the complainant had been drinking together for several hours - where the appellant was interviewed by police soon after the alleged incidents occurred while still intoxicated - where the appellant's father, who had accompanied the appellant to the police station, requested an opportunity for the appellant to speak with a solicitor - where this request was not acted upon - where the appellant made several admissions against interest in the course of the interview - where the record of interview was admitted at trial despite the objections of defence counsel - whether the interview had been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) - whether any irregularities that occurred resulted in such unfairness to the appellant that the record of interview should have been excluded by the learned trial judge

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED - where the only rational basis for reconciling the verdicts reached by the jury was that the jury had believed the evidence of the complainant in relation to some counts but not others - where the learned trial judge directed the jury to consider the evidence in relation to each count separately - where the learned trial judge did not direct the jury that any doubt as to the credibility of the complainant's evidence with respect to any one count should be considered when assessing her credibility in relation to the other counts - whether the failure to direct the jury in this way meant that there was a real risk that the jury misunderstood their task and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred