Qld Supreme court rejects child rapist’s appeal

A violent father convicted of raping and assaulting his own daughters has tried to overturn the conviction saying his lawyers threatened to quit if he took the stand.

A South Burnett man sentenced to 10 years’ jail for raping and assaulting his own daughters has tried to overturn the conviction saying his lawyers threatened to quit if he took the stand.

A man convicted of raping and sexually assaulting his own daughters has lost an appeal against the verdict after trying to claim his own lawyers threatened to quit if he took the stand.

The South Burnett man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, was found guilty after a trial in November 2020 of 28 crimes against the two girls.

His crimes included 12 counts of common assault, five counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 and a lineal descendant, five counts of sexual assault, three counts of rape, and individual counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, assault occasioning bodily harm, and indecent treatment of a child under 12 and a lineal descendant.

All but three of the crimes were domestic violence offences.

Evidence heard by the courts included testimony by one of the girls he was a “strict disciplinarian” who would punish them with “violence such as hitting across knuckles, wrists and hip” using his hands, a belt or sticks, and notes written by the same girl in which she referred to sexual acts.

‘Wasn’t a suicide’: Podcast raises questions about young woman’s death

A South Burnett man sentenced to 10 years’ jail for raping and assaulting his own daughters has tried to overturn the conviction saying his lawyers threatened to quit if he took the stand.

These included comments that “dad complains that I don’t give him hugs in bed” and “he doesn’t even care about me he just makes me scratch and rub his parts”.
He was jailed for 10 years with no parole date declared, and 168 days already served in pre-sentence custody.

The published Supreme Court documents show the man appealed the convictions in December 2020, but the matter was only finally able to be heard in April 2024.

He claimed a miscarriage of justice on three grounds: The cross-examination of the complainants was unfairly limited; The notes were allowed in the jury room without appropriate directions from the trial judge; And his own lawyers’ did not follow his instructions to call other defence witnesses or himself to “prove his innocence”, under threat they would quit if he did.

They were all thrown out by Justice Philip Morrison in a decision handed down on June 25, 2024.

‘My best friend for 31 years’: Mum mourned after driveway shooting death

The man was sentenced to 10 years jail with no declared parole date after being found guilty of 28 crimes against two of his daughters, including rape and sexual assault.

In the published ruling Justice Morrison says the 2020 trial judge’s approach to the cross-examination was “unimpeachable” and there was “no basis” to find it unfairly limited cross-examination of the complainants.

The claims about the evidence met a similar fate.

Justice Morrison said the notes only dealt with the allegation “in a very limited way” and, as they were at the “heart” of suggestions the allegations had been concocted “it is difficult to understand how the failure to give the further direction led to a miscarriage of justice”.

The man’s claims about his lawyers were cast aside as well.

Justice Morrison says the defence lawyers’ approach to which witnesses would be a called was sensible, and “the appellant was appraised of the approach to be taken and the decisions made as to whom to call”. His claims his defence lawyers threatened to quit if he took the stand were found to lack credibility.

Justice Morrison said the defence lawyers’ approach to which witnesses would be called was sensible, and “the appellant was appraised of the approach to be taken and the decisions made as to whom to call”.

Claims he was refused the right to give evidence himself under threat his lawyers would walk were undermined by his signing of instructions saying “I have considered the advice of my legal representatives and my rights thoroughly, and I instruct that I do not want to give evidence at my trial”.

His lawyers rejected any suggestion they threatened to sever ties with him during depositions, the ruling says.

Justice David Boddice and Peter Davis supported the findings, saying in the ruling there was “no credibility” to the man’s allegations about his lawyers’ behaviour in the trial.