CREIGHTON V. THE QUEEN

CREIGHTON V. THE QUEEN

The jury was not properly directed about necessary findings regarding the complainant's belief about the threats and whether consent was vitiated. Prejudicial questions during cross-examination were not the subject of a proper direction to the jury, resulting in potential unfairness. These inadequacies required quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Parties
Appellant: Creighton; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1952
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. New trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Rape, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Evidence, Consent by Intimidation
Criminal Law Rape Jury Directions Admissibility of Evidence Consent by Intimidation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Creighton

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's charge to the jury was sufficient regarding consent obtained by threats or intimidation under section 347 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (as adopted)
  2. 2 Whether cross-examination of the accused was improperly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was not properly directed about necessary findings regarding the complainant's belief about the threats and whether consent was vitiated. Prejudicial questions during cross-examination were not the subject of a proper direction to the jury, resulting in potential unfairness. These inadequacies required quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. New trial ordered.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • New trial ordered on the same charge