Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
R v BDF QCA 14
 QCA 14
COURT OF APPEAL
CA No 41 of 2018
DC No 71 of 2018
DC No 167 of 2017
FRIDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2019
SOFRONOFF P: In this appeal, Mr Meredith - who appears for the Crown - has informed the Court that the Crown accepts that grounds 2 and 4(a) of the notice of appeal have been established. He has submitted – and the appellant accepts – that the consequence is that there must be a re-trial of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11. This concession was based upon considerations that do not involve the slightest criticism of the learned trial judge’s conduct of the trial. Having regard to the fact that there must be a re-trial, we do not go on to consider the actual foundation for the course that the Crown has decided to adopt. For her part, the appellant abandons grounds 1, 5 and 6.
The appellant pleaded guilty to count 1 on the indictment and although she has appealed against that conviction, Ms Holliday of counsel - who appears for the appellant - has informed us that she intends to abandon ground 1 of the appeal. In those circumstances, the appropriate orders are (1) allow the appeal in part; (2) set aside verdicts on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11; (3) order that there be a re-trial of those counts; (4) leave to withdraw the appeal against the conviction on count 1. In terms of the appeal, you’re happy with the orders?
MS HOLLIDAY: Yes.
MR MEREDITH: Yes, your Honour.
SOFRONOFF P: All right. Well, those will be the orders then. Now, in relation to bail, what did you want to do?
MR MEREDITH: I understand that there’s an application and I would concede it and have bail be granted on the previous conditions.
SOFRONOFF P: So you’re content for bail to be granted on the previous conditions?
MR MEREDITH: I have a copy, your Honour.
SOFRONOFF P: Can I have a copy? Thanks. I will mark the form of undertaking tendered by the Crown on this application exhibit 1 on the application.
EXHIBIT #1 ADMITTED AND MARKED
SOFRONOFF P: So the two orders that I would propose are (1) bail be granted to BDF on condition that she be released from the custody of Corrective Services; (2) such bail is granted upon the conditions that applied to her bail prior to trial. Anything else?
MR MEREDITH: No, your Honour. Thank you.
SOFRONOFF P: There’s one other thing. Thank you, Ms Holliday for having defined the issue so well that it was possible to deal with the matter in this way. And Mr Meredith, the three of us are grateful for your application of your experience and skill in being able to see that this is the correct way to determine it. We’re grateful for that.
MR MEREDITH: Thank you, your Honour.
SOFRONOFF P: Adjourn until Monday 10.15, please.
- Published Case Name:
R v BDF
- Shortened Case Name:
R v BDF
 QCA 14
Sofronoff P, Gotterson JA, McMurdo JA
08 Feb 2019
|Event||Citation or File||Date||Notes|
|Primary Judgment||DC167/17, DC71/18 (No citation)||16 Feb 2018||Date of conviction after trial of several sexual offences involving biological daughter. The same jury acquitted the accused of further counts concerning the same complainant. The accused had earlier pleaded guilty to count 1 on the indictment, another sexual offence involving her daughter, which plea was relied upon by the Crown at trial.|
|Appeal Determined (QCA)|| QCA 14||08 Feb 2019||Appeal against convictions at trial allowed, convictions set aside, retrial ordered; leave to withdraw appeal against conviction of count 1 (to which accused had pleaded guilty) granted; bail granted: Sofronoff P, Gotterson and McMurdo JJA. The accused was retried before Kent QC DCJ sitting without a jury:  QDC 37.|