Moore v The Queen - [1999] FCA 448

Phillip John Moore v The Queen
[1999] FCA 448
No. AG 73 of 1998
Number of pages - 15
Criminal Law

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

MILES, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ

Criminal Law - appeal - verdict - whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory - extent to which appellate court should examine evidence and summing-up for itself - whether case left to jury as if accused had made admissions - whether questions asked by jury indicated jury went beyond its proper role - whether trial judge adequately instructed jury on these matters - he did.

Criminal Law - appeal - sentence of imprisonment - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D - fraud on revenue - failure to disclose income - whether special circumstances required to justify non-custodial sentence - whether sentencing judge took all relevant factors into account - he did.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 556J

Periodic Detention Act 1995 (ACT), s 6(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 8ZE

Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 followed

Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 521 followed

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 followed

Hayes v The Queen (1973) 47 ALJR 603 applied

Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454 discussed, considered

Gipp v The Queen [1998] HCA 21; (1998) 155 ALR 15 considered

R v Purdon (unreported, 27 March 1997, Court of Criminal Appeal of NSW) cited

R v Ruggiero (unreported, 1 December 1998, Court of Criminal Appeal of SA) considered

Timothy Christopher Morris (1992) 61 A Crim R 233 considered

R v Whitnall (1993) 68 A Crim R 119 considered, discussed

The Queen v Cobb [1999] FCA 159 considered

CANBERRA, 4 March 1999 (hearing), 15 April 1999 (decision)

#DATE 15:4:1999

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr S R Norrish QC with J Pappas

Solicitors for the Appellant: Mr G J Bellew

Counsel for the Respondent: Chamberlains Law Firm

Solicitors for the Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeals be dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the Supreme Court be confirmed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

MILES, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ

1. These are appeals against conviction and sentence. On 12 August 1998 the appellant was convicted on three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth, contrary to s 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (the Crimes Act). The fraud alleged in the respective counts was that in his income tax return for each of the tax years 1990, 1991 and 1992 the appellant failed to declare income. He was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for 18 months, all sentences to run concurrently, with a minimum term of six months.

2. The only ground of the appeal against conviction is that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. That ground having been raised, the Court, as a court of…

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 Moore v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Phillip John Moore v The Queen [1999] FCA 448 No. AG 73 of 1998 Number of pages - 15 Criminal Law
Case: [1999] FCA 448
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moore v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of two counts of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, appealing against the conviction on the grounds of the trial judge’s handling of jury instructions. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial forum in the country. The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of voluntary manslaughter, specifically regarding the concept of "adequate provocation" and "sudden and temporary loss of self-control."

The central legal issues in the case were whether the trial judge correctly explained the requirements for voluntary manslaughter to the jury and whether any misdirection was so significant as to necessitate a new trial. The appellant contended that the judge’s instructions were insufficient to ensure the jury understood the defence properly. The defence argued that the judge's explanation did not adequately cover the elements of "adequate provocation" and "sudden and temporary loss of self-control," leading to a potential miscarriage of justice.

The High Court examined the judge's instructions and found that while there was some imprecision in the language used, the overall effect was that the jury was properly guided on the principles of voluntary manslaughter. The court held that the trial judge's directions were not so misconceived as to vitiate the verdict. The judges found that the jury would have understood the critical elements of the defence from the context of the trial and the judge's overall instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.