The Queen v Yeatman
[1999] QDC 376
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- The Queen v Yeatman[1999] QDC 376
- Add to List
The Queen v Yeatman[1999] QDC 376
The Queen v Yeatman[1999] QDC 376
DISTRICT COURT | Indictment No 284 of 1999 |
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
JUDGE WHITE
THE QUEEN
v.
TRENT THOMAS YEATMAN
CAIRNS
DATE 04/10/99
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: I direct that a transcript of submissions be prepared and if there is any appeal against this ruling then that transcript will substantially expose my reasoning for coming to the conclusion that joinder of these counts is permissible.
I should just say something further about the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Queen v. O'Keefe, appeal number 322 of 1998, 5 March 1999 unreported, and the extract from the judgment of Mr Justice Thomas in that case referred to by the Court of Appeal in The Queen v. O'Neill, CA number 20 of 1999, 25 May 1999 unreported.
I take it to be a ruling that the evidence is not admissible unless it is “of such calibre that there is no reasonable view of it other than as supporting an inference that the accused is guilty of the offence charged”.
The prosecution case in respect of counts 2 and 3 is that those offences were committed with little or no physical resistance on the part of the complainant. It will be the prosecution case that the conduct of the accused towards her occurred against her will, that is, without her consent. It will be her evidence that this occurred because of her fear of violence at the hands of the accused.
It seems to me that if the same complainant was the victim of a serious incident of violence at the hands of the same accused approximately one month before the offences took place, then that is evidence relevant to their relationship at the time of the later offences.
It is evidence which in my view is relevant to the reasonableness or otherwise of the complainant's claimed fear of further violence at the hands of the accused if she did not submit to him. It is also to be noted that according to the complainant, prior to the alleged commission of counts 2 and 3, he threatened to bash her.
It is not for a Judge in dealing with questions of admissibility to decide whether or not a particular witness' evidence is true. That is a question for the jury. If the jury does not accept the truth of the evidence, then it will be instructed not to use it for any purpose.
However, if the jury in this case accepts the evidence of the complainant as to the circumstances and degree of violence involved in count 1, then it seems to me that there is no reasonable view of it other than as supporting an inference that the accused is guilty of the offences charged in counts 2 and 3.
It is to be noted that it is not for the trial Judge to determine whether the questioned evidence does in fact prove an accused guilty of the offence charged. What is required is that there is no reasonable view of it other than “supporting an inference” that the accused is guilty. In my view the counts are properly joined.