Callander v The Queen

The appellant, Peter Leslie Callander, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of 16 counts of stealing and 14 counts of false accounting. The charges related to his employment as Manager of the Rum Jungle Recreation Club Inc. between July 1997 and January 1998, during which time he was responsible for the club's accounts and financial records. The Crown's case was that the appellant deliberately under-reported the club's revenue in the monthly sales report book, thereby stealing the difference between the actual receipts and the recorded amounts.

The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the appellant's exercise of his right to silence, particularly after his refusal to participate in a third police interview. The court also considered whether a *Jones v Dunkel* direction was necessary regarding the Crown's decision not to call two potential witnesses, and whether an *Edwards* or *Zoneff* direction was required concerning the prosecutor's comments on the appellant's manner of answering police questions. Finally, the court had to assess whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, considering alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence.

Regarding the right to silence, the court found that while evidence of the appellant's refusal to participate in a third interview was admitted, the Crown did not rely on it as an admission of guilt, and neither party addressed it in their final addresses. The possibility of an adverse inference being drawn by the jury was deemed too remote. The court also held that the two potential witnesses were not material witnesses, thus negating the need for a *Jones v Dunkel* direction. Concerning the *Edwards* direction, the court acknowledged a risk that the jury might have inferred guilt from the prosecutor's remarks about the appellant's answers in the second police interview, but concluded that the failure to give such a direction did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, given the lack of a specific request at trial, the jury's awareness of the appellant's reasons for not answering, and the overwhelming nature of the Crown's case.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court found that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as the Crown's case was overwhelming and any alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence were not sufficiently plausible to create reasonable doubt. The court applied principles from cases such as *Barr v The Queen*, *Edwards v The Queen*, and *Zoneff v The Queen* in its reasoning.