R v Mentink

[2018] QCA 180

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. › Historical sexual offences
5. › Delay of more than 40 years
6. › Whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
7. › Inconsistencies in complainant evidence
8. › Poor memory of complainant
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Protected witnesses
5. › Prohibition on unrepresented accused cross-examining complainant
6. › Whether appointment of counsel for cross-examination sufficient remedy
7. › Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21N, 21O, 21P
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Conduct of prosecutor or prosecution
4. › Failure to call witnesses
5. › Failure to tender documents
6. › Whether trial rendered unfair
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Powers of court on appeal
4. › Fresh and new evidence
5. › Evidence available at trial but not adduced
6. › Residual discretion to receive new evidence in exceptional cases
7. › Whether refusal would result in miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

A conviction for historical sexual offences committed more than 40 years earlier may be upheld where the jury was properly directed under Longman and the complainants' evidence, despite inconsistencies and memory difficulties, was capable of supporting a verdict of guilty. A lawyer appointed under Part 2 Division 6 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to cross-examine protected witnesses for an unrepresented accused owes all duties of a lawyer to the client and the limited role does not render the trial unfair. Evidence available at trial but not adduced is 'new evidence' (not 'fresh evidence') and will only be received on appeal in exceptional cases where refusal would result in a miscarriage of justice.