Christopher John Miles v The Queen

Case [2014] ACTCA 18

Christopher John Miles v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 18 (3 June 2014)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against conviction – whether conviction was unsafe and unjust – whether open to a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery – scope of agreement to commit offence – whether there was evidence that agreement encompassed being in company – whether there was evidence that agreement encompassed use of force – whether there was evidence that agreement encompassed knife – whether there was evidence that agreement encompassed pinch bar

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 48, s 309, 310
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37 O

Ahern v The Queen- (1988) 165 CLR 87

Birrell v Astor (1940) VLR 180

Delk v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 340

Dickson v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 491

FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182

Gemmell - (1985) 1 CRNZ 496

Gerakiteys (1984) 153 CLR 317

Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473

Kelly v The Queen: (1989) 23 FCR 463

Markou v R: [2012] NSWCCA 64

M v The Queen  (1994) 181 CLR 487

Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493

R v Ansari (2007) 70 NSWLR 89

R v Barbouttis (1995) 37 NSWLR 256

R v Brougham - (1986) 43 SASR 187

R v Button; R v Griffen [2002] NSWCCA 159

R v Caldwell (2009) 22 VR 93

R v Crozier, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal 8 March 1996, unreported

R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618

R v Leonie (1999) NSWCCA 14

R v LK- (2010) 241 CLR 177

R v Moore [1988] 1 Qd R 252

R v O’Brien: (1974) 59 Cr. App. R. 222

R v Orton [1922] VLR 469

R v RK and LK [2008] NSWCCA 338

R v Rogerson-  (1992) 107 ALR 225

Rolls v The Queen [2011] VSCA 401

SKA v The Queen  (2011) 243 CLR 400

WA v R [2011] ACTCA 4

Western Australia v Maria Mona Dick [2006] 161 A Crim R 271

Orchard G (1974) “Agreement in Criminal Conspiracy - 1”, Criminal Law Review 297

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 58 of 2012
No. SCC 395A of 2011

Judges:        Murrell CJ, Penfold and Ross JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           3 June 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 58 of 2012
  )          No. SCC 395A of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER JOHN MILES

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Murrell CJ, Penfold and Ross JJ
Date:  3 June 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 58 of 2012
  )          No.…

Continue reading Christopher John Miles v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Christopher John Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 18
Case
[2014] ACTCA 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The appellant, Christopher John Miles, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue on appeal was whether the conviction was unsafe and unjust, and whether it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence.

The Court was required to determine the scope of the agreement between the appellant and a co-offender, Ramos, to commit the aggravated robbery. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence supported a finding that the agreement encompassed the use of force, the presence of a knife, the use of a pinch bar, and the element of being in company.

The Court reasoned that the evidence, including intercepted telephone conversations and the testimony of Ramos, established a clear agreement between the appellant and Ramos to rob Woolworths. The conversations on 5 and 6 January 2011, along with the appellant's admissions during his record of interview, demonstrated an intention to steal bags of money. Ramos' evidence indicated that preparations were made, including the gathering of a balaclava, pinch bar, and beanies, and that Ramos placed a knife in his pocket. The pinch bar was placed in the bag by the appellant. Ramos' understanding that the appellant would decide the timing of the entry, whether before or after closing, and the potential use of the pinch bar to force entry, supported the conclusion that the agreement encompassed the use of force and the presence of the pinch bar. The fact that they were apprehended together while preparing for the robbery also supported the element of being in company. The Court found that the jury was entitled to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the agreement included these elements, rendering the conviction safe and just.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

We now turn to consider the evidence.The Evidence Ramos gave evidence that he had known the appellant for about 8 years.[26] In cross-examination[27] Ramos gave evidence of giving a 50 plus page statement to police after being arrested by police on 6 January 2011. That statement was given during a number of interviews with police and covered a number of criminal activities Ramos had been involved in including aggravated burglaries and robberies. He agreed that the only matter he had been charged with was with the conspiracy to commit the aggravated robbery on Woolworths, and he had been given an indemnity from prosecution in June 2011 in respect of a number of offences, except for the Woolworths conspiracy. He agreed in cross-examination that he had pleaded guilty to that charge, and had been given a reduction in the sentence due to his agreement to give evidence against the appellant in these proceedings. Ramos was sentenced to periodic detention and gave evidence that he understood that if he did not give evidence against the appellant in these proceedings, he could be resentenced, possibly to full time imprisonment.[28] Ramos and the appellant had a number of telephone calls on 5 and 6 January 2011 at the following times: 12.17pm (AB570-573), 2.44pm (AB 581), 2.50pm (AB582-586), 4.45pm (AB 587). Recordings of these calls, which had been lawfully intercepted, were played at the trial. The calls at 2.44pm and 4.45pm are just to arrange further contact, the call at 2.44pm to arrange the later call at 2.50, the call at 4.45pm to arrange to meet which they did later that day. There was a further call at 10.55 am on 6 January 2011. The relevant calls are 5 January at 12.17pm and 2.50pm, and the 6 January call. The 12.17pm telephone conversation on 5 January 2011 marks the genesis of whatever agreement came to fruition between the appellant and Ramos. The relevant extracts of that conversation are set out below. A further telephone conversation took place at 2.50pm on 5 January 2011:[29] During his record of interview the appellant confirmed that the plan involved stealing bags of money from Woolworths.[30] After this call Ramos and the appellant met and the evidence of that meeting is dealt with in Ramos’ evidence. There is a further telephone conversation at 10.55am on 6 January 2011. The relevant parts of the transcript of that conversation are set out below:[31] Ramos gave evidence that on the day he and the appellant were apprehended they went to the appellant’s house and started preparing. They put the balaclavas, pinch bar and beanies in the bag.[32] While at the appellant’s house, Ramos placed a knife in his pocket. That knife had been brought by Ramos from his house.[33] The pinch bar (or jemmy bar) was placed in the bag by the appellant.[34] Ramos and the appellant then went to the appellant’s father’s house to pick up a second push bike. The appellant and Ramos then drove past Woolworths to have a look.[35] Ramos’ understanding was that it was going to be up to the appellant to decide when they went into the store; that is whether they went in before it closed, or waited until it closed, then smashed their way in with the pinch bar.[36]

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.