Bolger v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 129

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bolger v R [2021] NSWCCA 129
Hearing dates: 28 May 2021
Date of orders: 16 July 2021
Decision date: 16 July 2021
Before: Harrison J at [1];
Adamson J at [95];
Bellew J at [96]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – where appellant convicted of setting fire to his house – destroying or damaging property – attempt to dishonestly obtain financial advantage from insurance company – where there are several available reasons why appellant may have not started fire – where it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant’s interpretation of evidence should not be accepted – where there are no inconsistencies in evidence that are irreconcilable with finding of appellant’s guilt – verdict not unreasonable and can be supported having regard to evidence – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Anthony Bolger (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Dalton SC with S Grey (Applicant)
G Newton (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/226968
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2018] NSWDC 285

Date of Decision:

26 April 2018

Before:

Norrish QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/226968

Judgment

HARRISON J: Paul Anthony Bolger was convicted by a jury after a trial before his Honour Norrish QC DCJ between 30 January 2018 and 20 March 2018 on two counts as follows:

Count 1: That on 16 March 2013 at Tamworth in the State of New South Wales he did dishonestly damage by means of fire the house and contents at 93 Johnston Street, North Tamworth with a view to making gain, namely, payment of insurance money for himself contrary to s 197(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.
Count 2: That between 15 March 2013 and 25 July 2013 at Tamworth in the State of New South Wales he did, by deception, namely, by falsely reporting a fire to be accidental and claiming advantage on an insurance policy, dishonestly attempt to obtain a financial advantage for himself, contrary to s 192E(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Mr Bolger was sentenced by his Honour on 26 April 2018 for these counts to an effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months to date from that day. Mr Bolger’s entire sentence has now expired.
Mr Bolger now seeks leave to appeal out of time against his convictions on the single ground that the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The application for leave and the…

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 Bolger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bolger v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 129
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 129
Decision Date: 16 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bolger v The Queen involved the appellant, Bolger, appealing against his conviction for setting fire to his house, which was deemed to be an act of destroying or damaging property with the intent to obtain a financial advantage from his insurance company. The decision was made by the court, which heard the appeal against the conviction. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove Bolger's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and if the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court examined the evidence and found that there were several potential reasons why Bolger may not have started the fire, but it was within the jury's purview to decide which interpretation of the evidence to accept. The court held that there were no inconsistencies in the evidence that would be irreconcilable with the finding of Bolger's guilt. Consequently, the court determined that the verdict was not unreasonable and could be supported based on the evidence presented during the trial. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remained intact.

In summary, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt, and there were no inconsistencies that would undermine the finding. The appeal was dismissed, and Bolger's conviction for setting fire to his house with the intent to obtain a financial advantage from his insurance company remained in place. The court upheld the original decision, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Orders