R v Collins

[2016] QCA 256

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. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Sexual offences
5. › Credibility of complainant
6. › Delay of 30 years between offences and complaint
7. › Whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
8. › Whether inconsistencies in complainant's evidence rendered verdict unreasonable
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Role of jury
5. › Pre-eminence of jury as arbiter of fact
6. › Weight to be given to jury's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses
7. › Whether appellate court should substitute its own assessment

Quick Take

A jury verdict of guilty on historical sexual offence charges is not rendered unreasonable merely because the complainant's evidence contains inconsistencies attributable to a 30-year delay, where the defence concedes sexual intercourse occurred and the real issue is consent, and where the trial judge has given an appropriate Longman-type warning about the dangers of convicting on the complainant's evidence alone. The appellate court must give appropriate weight to the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, and will not substitute its own assessment of credibility.