R v Edwards

[2025] QCA 123

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. › Independent assessment of the record
5. › Whether jury's verdict on sexual assault was unreasonable
6. › Whether inconsistencies in complainant's evidence and DNA evidence rendered verdict unreasonable
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Acquittal on one count and conviction on another
6. › Whether guilty verdict unreasonably inconsistent with not guilty verdict
7. › Whether logical basis for inconsistency existed
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Power of court to punish for contempt
4. › Contempt in the face of the court
5. › Summary procedure
6. › Whether procedural fairness afforded
7. › Whether conduct was wilful
8. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 129
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Punishment for contempt
4. › Whether court required to conform to Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
5. › Conditional imprisonment to coerce purging of contempt
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 930, r 931

Quick Take

Rule 930(2) UCPR allows a court punishing for contempt to make any order available under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) but does not require the order to conform to the PSA's conditions as if imposed upon an offender, and conditional imprisonment designed to coerce purging of contempt remains a proper exercise of the contempt power.