Legal Research
Cases
Booth v The Queen

Booth v The Queen

Case [2022] ACTCA 46 21 September 2022

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Booth v The Queen
Citation:	[2022] ACTCA 46
Hearing Date:	17 August 2022
DecisionDate:	21 September 2022
Before:	McCallum CJ, Elkaim and Kennett JJ
Decision:	(1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The conviction entered on 1 October 2021 is quashed. (3) Proceedings on charge CC2019/1404 are permanently stayed
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Principle of incontrovertibility – where accused was acquitted of aggravated burglary at jury trial – where accused subsequently convicted by Judge of related charge of minor damage property – whether prosecution of related charge controverted earlier acquittal – unfairness and oppression – conviction set aside and prosecution stayed as an abuse of process
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 116 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68D
Cases Cited:	Abdallah v R [2019] NSWCCA 294 AJS v The Queen [2007] HCA 27; 235 CLR 505 Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; 230 CLR 89 Garrett v The Queen (1997) 139 CLR 437 Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski [2006] HCA 30, 226 CLR 328 Koloamatangi v R [2020] NSWCCA 52; 282 A Crim R 160 Minister for Immigration v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541 Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50; 245 CLR 456 Mraz v The Queen (No 2) (1956) 96 CLR 62 Nash v R [2019] NSWCCA 124 R v Booth (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 255 R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 226 R v Carroll [2002] HCA 55; 213 CLR 635 R v Ollis [1900] 2 QB 758 R v Rogers (1994) 181 CLR 251 R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364 TR v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] NSWSC 255; A Crim R 527
Parties:	Richard Desmond Charles Booth ( Appellant) The Queen ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel J White SC ( Appellant) K McCann ( Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 52 of 2021
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 1 October 2021 Case Title: R v Booth Citation: [2021] ACTSC 226 Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 1 October 2021 Case Title: R v Booth (No 2) Citation: [2021] ACTSC 255

McCallum CJ and Kennett J:

Introduction

The appellant (Mr Booth) was charged with aggravated burglary. The incident from which that charge arose is described in the remarks on the sentencing of Mr Booth’s co-accused, Melanie Booth: R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 at [7]–[17]. Briefly, Mr Booth, Melanie Booth and a number of other members of the Booth family travelled together in a minibus to premises occupied by a Ms Desi Connors and her three children. Some members of the Booth family attempted to enter 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 Booth v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Booth v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 46
Case: [2022] ACTCA 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by McCallum CJ, Elkaim and Kennett JJ, heard an appeal by Richard Desmond Charles Booth against his conviction for minor property damage. Mr Booth had previously been acquitted by a jury on a related charge of aggravated burglary arising from the same incident. Following his acquittal on the burglary charge, Mr Booth applied for a permanent stay of the property damage charge, arguing that its prosecution constituted an abuse of process due to potential inconsistency with the jury's earlier verdict. The primary Judge dismissed this application and subsequently convicted Mr Booth of the property damage charge.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the prosecution of the property damage charge, after Mr Booth's acquittal for aggravated burglary, amounted to an abuse of process. This required the court to determine if there was an inconsistency between the jury's acquittal and a potential conviction on the property damage charge, and if so, whether this inconsistency warranted a permanent stay of proceedings. The court considered whether "necessary inconsistency" was required, or if it was sufficient that a conviction on the property damage charge would contradict a plausible basis for the jury's acquittal.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and permanently stayed the proceedings. The reasoning focused on the principle of incontrovertibility, which prevents a prosecution that is inconsistent with or calls into question a prior acquittal. The Court found that the primary Judge erred in dismissing the application for a stay. While the jury's acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge was inscrutable, the Court considered it plausible that the jury was not satisfied Mr Booth was present at the door when it was damaged. A conviction for property damage, which arose from the damage to that same door, could therefore contradict a possible basis for the acquittal, leading to unfairness and oppression. The Court concluded that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process and ordered a permanent stay.

Orders