R v Lee

[2012] QCA 239

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Failure to put matters to complainant whose evidence was pre-recorded
5. › Whether failure to recall complainant under s 21AN resulted in miscarriage of justice
6. › Whether trial judge's direction cured any prejudice
7. › Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21AK, 21AN
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Credibility of complainant
5. › Whether inconsistencies in complainant's account and absence of injuries rendered verdict unreasonable
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Sentence manifestly excessive
5. › Rape of vulnerable young person
6. › Significant age disparity
7. › Intoxication of complainant
8. › Absence of remorse
9. › No plea of guilty
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Pre-recorded evidence of complainant
4. › Recall of witness whose evidence pre-recorded
5. › Whether interests of justice required recall
6. › Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21AK, 21AN

Quick Take

Where a complainant's evidence has been pre-recorded under s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), the failure of trial counsel to seek recall of the complainant under s 21AN to put matters later raised in the accused's evidence does not result in a miscarriage of justice where there is no evidence of relevant instructions to counsel and the trial judge directs the jury in accordance with R v Foley that there may be reasons for the failure that do not reflect on the accused's credibility. A sentence of six years imprisonment for rape of a 15-year-old by a 48-year-old, where the complainant was intoxicated and vulnerable and the offender showed no remorse and did not plead guilty, is not manifestly excessive.