Court of Appeal

R v FAL [2017] QCA 022 (16/284) Gotterson and Morrison and Philippides JJA 3 March 2017

Full-text: QCA17-022.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 years – where the appellant contends the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – where the central allegations in the complainant’s evidence were not directly supported by other evidence – whether the complainant’s evidence was sufficient to establish an unlawful sexual relationship

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – MAINTAINING UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child over a period of three years and nine months – where the appellant contends that “fleeting low level contact” of a sexual nature could not constitute a sexual relationship – whether a “relationship” within the meaning of s 229B(2) Criminal Code (Qld) requires a minimum degree of invasiveness or a minimum frequency of sexual contact

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant did not seek a direction in terms of Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162 at trial – where the jury asked for a redirection on the maintaining a sexual relationship with a child offence – where the appellant contends that the failure to give a direction in terms of Robinson gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – where the complainant was a child and her evidence was uncorroborated – where the trial judge had addressed the inconsistencies between the complainant’s accounts in the summing up – where there was no exceptional delay – where the complainant was not a very young child – where the complainant did not suffer any illness or disorder relevant to the assessment of her credibility – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred