Mapham v Bannerman

[2013] ACTSC 157

VINCENT KRUW MAPHAM v STEVEN DONALD BANNERMAN;
HEATHER MYRLE MAPHAM v STEVEN DONALD BANNERMAN
[2013] ACTSC 157 (13 August 2013)

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Interference with Judge’s Findings of Fact – appeal from Magistrate’s finding of guilt – availability of appeal on ground that verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – applicability of “proviso” in such appeals – whether error by Magistrate had resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice.

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Interference with Judge’s Findings of Fact – appeal from Magistrate’s finding of guilt – Magistrate should not have applied Jones v Dunkel reasoning against appellant – no miscarriage of justice – appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Interference with Discretion of Court Below – appeal on ground of Magistrate’s failure to uphold no case submission – error in rejecting no case submission – no miscarriage of justice if defence evidence incriminated appellant – defence evidence did not incriminate appellant – appeal allowed.

EVIDENCE – Admissibility and Relevancy – appellant in company of informant in relation to existing proceedings against appellant – without caution, appellant gave informant receipt relevant to existing proceedings – appellant charged with using false evidence, arising out of provision of receipt to informant – whether failure to caution meant that evidence of provision of receipt improperly obtained for purposes of use false evidence charge – whether person in company of investigating officer should be cautioned in order to avoid impropriety in obtaining evidence of any offence subsequently committed – evidence of subsequent offence not improperly obtained – no error by Magistrate in admitting evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Offences Relating to the Administration of Justice – use false evidence – offence alleged involved giving police officer false receipt in connection with charge of unlawful possession of stolen property – police officer spoke to offender in connection with unlawful possession offence – whether evidence of using false evidence offence obtained improperly because defendant not cautioned before providing receipt – no requirement for caution in circumstances of case – evidence not improperly obtained – no error by Magistrate in admitting evidence.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 138, 139

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 324, 700, 705

Anderson v Davis [2009] WASC 38
Bullman v Debnam [2010] ACTSC 97
Durovic v The Queen (1994) 71 A Crim R 33
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285
Ibrahim v Police [2012] SASC 231
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lane v Laneand Anor [2011] ACTSC 53
Massey v The Queen [2001] FCA 1558
R v Naa (2009) 76 NSWLR 271
R vPatsalis[No 3] [1999] NSWSC 718
Rasoolifard v Nicol [2001] WASCA 180
Ross v Munns [1998] NTCA 33
Upton v Cowling [2001] ACTSC 116
Upton v Cowling [2002] FCAFC 134
Yassir v Bone [2010] QDC 11

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 59 & 63 of 2011

Judge:             Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              13 August 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT…