Everingham v The Queen - [2007] QDC 107

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Everingham v The Queen [2007] QDC 107
PARTIES: TREVOR RAYMOND EVERINGHAM

Applicant

V
THE QUEEN

Respondent

FILE NO/S: Indictment No 125 of 2007
DIVISION: Criminal Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: Application to severe charges on indictment and exclude
evidence
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Ipswich
DELIVERED ON: 28 May 2007
DELIVERED AT: District Court, Southport, by telephone
HEARING DATE: 3 May 2007
JUDGE: Kingham DCJ
ORDERS: 1. Application to sever the indictment is declined.
2. Evidence of the Beenleigh fire is inadmissible at the trial of
the charged fires.
3. Application to rule inadmissible evidence of the Windsor
and Queen Street fires is declined.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENT – JOINDER OF CHARGES – SERIES OF OFFENCES OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER –Where evidence of each charge is cross- admissible against each other.

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF PREVIOUS OFFENCES AND UNCHARGED ACTS – SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE - Defendant’s connection to each of the fires and the circumstances of each of the fires – Accidental cause not excluded for uncharged act.
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss461, 567(2), 597A
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 - applied
Pfenning v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 - applied
Phillips v The Queen (2006) 224 ALR 216 - applied
R v MAP [2006] QCA 220 - applied
Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 - applied
COUNSEL: S.L. Kissick for the Defendant
D.R. Kinsella for the Crown
SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the Defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown
[1]  Trevor Everingham faces nine charges arising out of four fires which occurred between October 1992 and May 2001 in various places in South-East Queensland (the charged fires). The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has presented one indictment which joins all nine charges so they may be tried together.
[2]  The DPP has also indicated its intention to lead evidence at trial about four other fires in NSW and South-East Queensland (the past fires). Mr Everingham has applied for pre-trial rulings that only those charges relating to a single fire are tried together and that evidence of the past fires in inadmissible.
[3]  The DPP resists separate trials of the charged fires on the basis they are properly joined as forming a series of offences of the same or similar character (s567(2) Criminal Code). Mr Kinsella, for the DPP, submitted that the test for a requisite nexus to found a series of offences is less onerous than the test applied to determine admissibility of similar fact evidence.
[4]  In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that the requirement for a nexus between them is only established if the evidence about them is cross- admissible. In any case, during oral submissions Mr Kinsella conceded that, unless evidence in relation to each charged fire is cross-admissible in relation to each other charged fire, the indictment should be severed, because the risk of prejudice to a fair trial could not be overcome by judicial…

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 Everingham v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Everingham v The Queen [2007] QDC 107
Case: [2007] QDC 107
Decision Date: 28/05/2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Everingham v The Queen involved the appellant, Everingham, who was charged with arson related to a series of fires. The dispute centred around the joinder of charges and the admissibility of evidence from each incident. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues at hand required the court to determine whether the charges should be severed and if evidence from certain fires could be admitted during the trial of other charged incidents.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the charges should be severed and if evidence from the Beenleigh fire was admissible at the trial of other charged fires. The appellant argued that the joinder of charges was improper and that evidence from the Beenleigh fire should not be admissible as it would prejudice the trial of other charges. The court considered the principles of joinder of charges and the admissibility of cross-admissible evidence. It was determined that while the charges related to a series of offences of a similar character, the evidence of each charge was cross-admissible against each other, making severance unnecessary.

The High Court declined the application to sever the indictment and ruled that evidence of the Beenleigh fire was admissible at the trial of the charged fires. The court held that the joinder of charges was appropriate given the cross-admissibility of evidence and the similarities between the charged offences. Furthermore, the court declined the application to rule the evidence of the Windsor and Queen Street fires inadmissible. The reasoning was that the prejudicial effect of the evidence was outweighed by its probative value in establishing a common scheme or plan. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need for an efficient and fair trial process.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision upheld the joinder of charges and the admissibility of cross-admissible evidence in this case. The court's ruling ensures that the trial of the charged offences proceeds without unnecessary fragmentation and with the inclusion of relevant evidence. The final orders of the court were to decline the application to sever the indictment, to rule that evidence of the Beenleigh fire was admissible, and to decline the application to exclude evidence of the Windsor and Queen Street fires.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to sever the indictment is declined.

2. Evidence of the Beenleigh fire is inadmissible at the trial of

the charged fires.

3. Application to rule inadmissible evidence of the Windsor

and Queen Street fires is declined.

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:	Everingham v The Queen [2007] QDC 107
PARTIES:	TREVOR RAYMOND EVERINGHAM

FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 125 of 2007
DIVISION:	Criminal Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application to severe charges on indictment and exclude evidence
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court, Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2007
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Southport, by telephone
HEARING DATE:	3 May 2007
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Application to sever the indictment is declined. 2. Evidence of the Beenleigh fire is inadmissible at the trial of the charged fires. 3. Application to rule inadmissible evidence of the Windsor and Queen Street fires is declined.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENT – JOINDER OF CHARGES – SERIES OF OFFENCES OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER –Where evidence of each charge is cross- admissible against each other.
EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF PREVIOUS OFFENCES AND UNCHARGED ACTS – SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE - Defendant’s connection to each of the fires and the circumstances of each of the fires – Accidental cause not excluded for uncharged act.
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss461, 567(2), 597A Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 - applied Pfenning v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 - applied Phillips v The Queen (2006) 224 ALR 216 - applied R v MAP [2006] QCA 220 - applied Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 - applied
COUNSEL:	S.L. Kissick for the Defendant D.R. Kinsella for the Crown
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the Defendant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown