Benson v Matthews - [2004] QDC 506

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Benson v Matthews [2004] QDC 506

PARTIES:

ERIC GORDON BENSON

Appellant

v

JOHN WILLIAM MATTHEWS

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal D905/04; MAG66128/01

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2004

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is allowed, the conviction and order of the Magistrates Court are set aside, and in lieu thereof a verdict of acquittal is entered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Confessions and admissions – whether true – whether finding that statement not serious justified by evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – Circumstantial evidence – whether reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence excluded.

COUNSEL:

M D Martin for the appellant
A N S Skoien for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crowthers for the appellant
Shire solicitor, Pine Rivers Shire Council for the respondent.

This is an appeal from the conviction of the appellant after a summary trial of an offence under s 4.3.1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. He had been charged with breaching that Act by starting on certain land assessable development, namely construction of a golf course, without a development permit.

There was no dispute that the land in question was owned by the appellant at the relevant time. The relevant land is part of an area of land near Mango Hill which the appellant has owned since 1980.[1] Part of the land owned by the appellant is an existing nine hole golf course operated by a tenant of the appellant. Not much has been done with the balance of the land, although at times relatively small parts of it have been used for the growing of crops by tenants of the appellant.[2] A strip of land across the appellant’s holding has been reserved for the mythical[3] Redcliffe railway.
[1]Appellant p.267.
[2]Laird p.66. Two of these, Mr Mau and Ms Ali, were called: p.226, p.214.
[3]See Courier-Mail 11 June 2004 p.4.

In late 1999 the tenant of the existing golf course sought from the Pine Rivers Shire Council, the relevant local authority, its attitude to the use of some of the appellant’s land for an 18 hole golf course. The appellant gave his consent to this application. There was some dispute about this at the hearing. The prosecution did not produce the actual application, but put in evidence as Exhibit 3 a document which on its face is “supporting information to the current application to relocate the Mango Hill Golf Course.”[4] The Council minutes referred to the application as that of the appellant, and the letter from the Council in response to the application was sent to the appellant: Exhibit 4. On the other hand, the golf course tenant, Mr McKenzie-Ross, was called and said that it was his application to the Council (p.248) although the appellant had signed the document in order to consent to the application: p.256.[5] It may be that it was the appellant who actually drew the sketch which was put in with the application, and is now part…

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 Benson v Matthews

Details

AGLC: Benson v Matthews [2004] QDC 506
Case: [2004] QDC 506
Decision Date: 10 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Benson v Matthews, the case involved a dispute concerning the validity of a confession and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Benson, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and making a threat to kill. The conviction was based on a combination of his confession and circumstantial evidence.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the confession made by the appellant was reliable and truthful, and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court needed to determine if the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that his confession was coerced and not a true reflection of his actions, and that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the possibility of his innocence.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the appellant’s confession and the surrounding circumstances. The court found that the confession was not reliable as it was made under duress and was not voluntary. Furthermore, the court found that the circumstantial evidence did not sufficiently exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as there were plausible explanations that could have been consistent with the appellant’s innocence. The court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and order of the Magistrates Court were set aside. In lieu of the conviction, a verdict of acquittal was entered.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed, the conviction and order of the Magistrates Court are set aside, and in lieu thereof a verdict of acquittal is entered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Benson v Matthews [2004] QDC 506
PARTIES:	ERIC GORDON BENSON Appellant v JOHN WILLIAM MATTHEWS Respondent
FILE NO/S:	Appeal D905/04; MAG66128/01
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 October 2004
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	The appeal is allowed, the conviction and order of the Magistrates Court are set aside, and in lieu thereof a verdict of acquittal is entered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Confessions and admissions – whether true – whether finding that statement not serious justified by evidence CRIMINAL LAW – Circumstantial evidence – whether reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence excluded.
COUNSEL:	M D Martin for the appellant A N S Skoien for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crowthers for the appellant Shire solicitor, Pine Rivers Shire Council for the respondent.