Legal Research
Cases
Audsley v The Queen

Audsley v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 41 7 March 2013

Handling Stolen Goods

Breach of Contract

Trial Procedure

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0041

IAN DAVID AUDSLEY	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE JA, KAYE and LASRY AJJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	27 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	7 March 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 41
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Audsley (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Bourke, 14 October 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW − Handling stolen goods − Appellant convicted of five counts of handling stolen furniture items − Allegedly stolen items disposed of before trial − Whether convictions unsafe because of unavailability of furniture − Whether trial judge failed to properly direct jury as to the elements of handling − Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that the appellant have exclusive possession of the furniture − Whether trial miscarried by the introduction, in re-examination, of evidence earlier ruled to be inadmissible − Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory − Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 88.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G J Traczyk	Simon Parsons & Co
For the Respondent	Ms F L Dalziel	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA:

For the reasons given by Kaye AJA, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

KAYE AJA:

The appellant was convicted, by a jury in the County Court, of four counts of handling stolen goods, contrary to s 88(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. He was sentenced, on each count, to a community corrections order. He appeals, by leave, against the convictions.

At the time of the offences, in 2008, the appellant resided, with his long time partner, in a house at the rear of a five acre property at 95 Noaki Street, Pearcedale. His son, Brett Audsley, and his family, lived in a house near the front of that property. A large shed was located on the property close to the house in which the appellant resided, and it contained a number of items including machinery and furniture. Both the appellant and his son had access to the shed.

Shortly after 7.00 am on 3 March 2008, members of Victoria Police executed two search warrants at the property. One search warrant was directed at the appellant, and one at Brett Audsley. Various items of furniture and property were seized in the course of the search. The items, which were relevant to the counts upon which the appellant was convicted, were located in the appellant’s home, in the shed, and on the tray of a truck parked in the driveway near the appellant’s house.

The police took the items, which had been seized, to the Frankston Police Station. Having observed the label on an item of furniture, the informant contacted Saywell Group Pty Ltd (‘Saywell’). Mr David Kelly, the managing director of that company, went to the police station and inspected the items. He formed the view that the furniture had been imported by Saywell. Mr Kelly then returned to Saywell’s offices, and made inquiries,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Audsley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Audsley v The Queen [2013] VSCA 41
Case: [2013] VSCA 41
Decision Date: 7 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Audsley, appealed against his conviction for handling stolen goods. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appeal centred around five counts of handling stolen furniture items, with the appellant convicted of each. The issue before the court was whether the appellant's convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the unavailability of the allegedly stolen furniture at trial. The court also had to determine if the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding the elements of handling stolen goods and if the trial judge was required to direct the jury that the appellant had exclusive possession of the furniture. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial miscarried by the introduction, in re-examination, of evidence earlier ruled to be inadmissible.

The court examined the evidence presented at trial and the trial judge's directions to the jury. It noted that while the stolen furniture was not available for inspection at trial, the appellant had admitted to handling the furniture, and other evidence supported the jury's findings. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient, and there was no requirement for the appellant to have exclusive possession of the furniture. The court also found that the introduction of the inadmissible evidence during re-examination did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court finding that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The court found that the evidence presented at trial, including the appellant's admissions and other supporting evidence, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, and there was no requirement for the appellant to have exclusive possession of the furniture. The court also found that the introduction of the inadmissible evidence during re-examination did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's convictions were therefore upheld.

Orders