F M T v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 165

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Disposition evidence
4. › Evidence of violent disposition towards third party
5. › Whether admissible to explain complainant's state of mind and delay in complaint
6. › Whether failure to give propensity direction productive of miscarriage of justice
7. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 398A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Consciousness of guilt
4. › Lies by accused
5. › Whether Edwards direction required
6. › Prosecution not relying on lies as evidence of guilt
7. › Whether characterisation of behaviour as 'strange' invited consciousness of guilt reasoning
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Whether verdict open to jury on whole of evidence
5. › Whether jury's failure to reach verdict on other counts rendered conviction inconsistent
6. › M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Jury directions
4. › Direction on absence of motive to lie
5. › Whether direction invited jury to convict because complainant lacked motive to lie
6. › R v Rodriguez [1998] 2 VR 167

Quick Take

Evidence of an accused's violent disposition towards a third party (here, the complainant's mother) may be admitted in a sexual offence trial where it is relevant to explain the complainant's state of mind and failure to complain, and the failure to give a propensity direction will not necessarily result in a miscarriage of justice where the violence is not sexual in nature and the Crown does not seek to link the violence to the charged sexual offences. A complaint of inconsistency between a guilty verdict and a failure to reach verdicts on other counts is more difficult to make out than inconsistency between a guilty verdict and an acquittal.