R v Svensen

[2014] QCA 85

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. › Misdirection or Non-direction
5. › Non-direction
6. › Summing up summarising rival contentions
7. › Whether trial judge's summary of prosecution submissions on complainant's conduct elevated credibility evidence into proof of elements of offence
8. › Whether direction required as to permissible use of evidence of complainant's conduct
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Miscarriage of Justice
4. › Dismissal of Appeal Where No Substantial Miscarriage of Justice
5. › Application of Proviso
6. › Compelling DNA evidence corroborating complainant's oral evidence
7. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred
8. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual Offences
3. › Maintaining a Sexual Relationship with a Child
4. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 229B(1)

Quick Take

A trial judge's summary of rival contentions about a complainant's credibility, including evidence of the complainant's conduct introduced by the defence, does not constitute a misdirection merely because the prosecution relied on that conduct as supporting the complainant's credibility. Where compelling DNA evidence corroborates the complainant's account, the proviso under s 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code will apply even if there was error in the summing up.

Case Details

Citation[2014] QCA 85

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on3

2012Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The QueenHCA 14
2006Darkan v RHCA 34
2005Weiss v The QueenHCA 81

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in