R v Brown

[2020] QCA 33

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. › Particular circumstances not amounting to miscarriage
5. › Conduct of defence counsel at trial
6. › Whether tactical decision to cross-examine on motive to lie rendered trial unfair
7. › Whether miscarriage of justice resulted from admission of evidence of uncharged sexual offending against another child
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Bad character and uncharged acts
4. › Admissibility for purposes other than propensity
5. › Rebuttal of allegation of motive to lie
6. › Whether evidence admissible to rebut accused's allegation that prosecution witness had motive to fabricate
7. › Whether limiting direction adequate to address risk of prejudicial misuse
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Conduct of defence counsel
4. › Tactical decisions
5. › Cross-examination on complainant's motive to lie
6. › Whether rational tactical decision can ground miscarriage of justice
7. › Criminal Code (Qld)

Quick Take

A defence counsel's deliberate tactical decision to cross-examine on a complainant's motive to lie in a sexual offence trial, made after due consideration and on instructions, does not render the trial unfair or cause a miscarriage of justice, even where the cross-examination renders admissible prejudicial evidence of uncharged sexual offending against another person, provided the evidence is relevant and admissible and a proper limiting direction is given. Courts act on the footing that juries follow judicial directions, and an argument that assumes a jury will disregard a correct direction is unsustainable.