Harman v Conneely - [2020] WASC 104

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   HARMAN -v- CONNEELY [2020] WASC 104
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   17 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   17 MARCH 2020
PUBLISHED           :   30 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1122 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DON HARMAN
Appellant
AND
EOGHAN CONNEELY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE K M TAVENER
File Number            :   MI 1268 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Fraudulent taking - Fraudulent conversion - Unreasonable and unsupportable verdict - Whether evidence before the court sufficient to find intention to permanently deprive the owner of property

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 7(b), s 7(c), s 7(d), s 371(1), s 372(2), s 371(6), s 378
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Judgment of acquittal entered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S Brennan
Respondent	:	Ms M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Damien Cripps Barrister & Solicitor
Respondent	:	Director Of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Birdsall v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 79
Clarke v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 14
Costa v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 200
Harwood v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 8
Ilich v The Queen [1987] HCA 1; (1987) 162 CLR 110
L v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 101; (2016) 49 WAR 545
Martincic v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 134
R v Angus [2000] QCA 29
R v Solomon [1959] Qd R 123
R v Stevens [2014] QCA 286; (2014) A Crim R 103

SMITH J:

The appeal and the result

The appellant entered a plea of not guilty to a charge that at Ellenbrook, on and between 29 August 2018 and 30 August 2018, he stole eight leather reclining couches, two Dynamics speakers and a garden ornament, valued at approximately $6,300, the property of Sandra Perkins; contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA).
Following a trial on 16 August 2019, 21 August 2019 and 26 August 2019, on 30 August 2019, the magistrate delivered extemporaneous reasons for decision and found the appellant guilty of stealing the speakers and the garden ornament, but not the reclining couches. The appellant was fined $500 and a spent conviction order was made.[1] The appellant was also ordered to pay costs of $205.30.
[1] The magistrate found that there was no evidence led as to the value of the property. He observed that the speakers and the ornament had no value from a tax point of view, but he accepted that they had some value; ts 30 August 2019, page 6.
The appellant appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that the verdict is unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
At the hearing of the appeal, the respondent conceded that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction set aside, and a verdict of acquittal entered.
After…

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 Harman v Conneely

Details

AGLC: Harman v Conneely [2020] WASC 104
Case: [2020] WASC 104
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harman v Conneely involved an appeal against conviction for the defendant, Conneely, who was found guilty of fraudulent taking and fraudulent conversion by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue at hand was whether the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Conneely intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The case centred around Conneely's actions in relation to a motor vehicle which was the subject of the alleged fraud.

The legal issues before the court required it to consider whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupportable given the evidence. This involved a careful examination of the definition of fraudulent taking and conversion, and the requisite intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The court had to determine if the evidence was compelling enough to prove the defendant's intent beyond reasonable doubt. It was necessary to assess whether the jury's conclusion was based on sufficient evidence or if it was instead an unreasonable interpretation of the facts.

The court found that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the jury's verdict. It concluded that the jury had properly considered all the evidence and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupportable. The court noted that the defendant's actions, including the sale of the motor vehicle and the retention of the proceeds, were indicative of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The evidence provided a clear picture of Conneely's fraudulent intent, which led to the jury's decision being upheld. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and Conneely's conviction remained intact.

Orders