QPS v Sauer - [2017] QMC 1

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

QPS v Sauer [2017] QMC 1

PARTIES:

Queensland Police Service
(Prosecution)

v

Reginal Dean Sauer
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00116048/14(6)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2016 and 2 December 2016

A/MAGISTRATE:

M Morrow

ORDER:

Found guilty of all charges

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Whether stealing cattle – whether using registered brand with criminal intention – whether defacing brand – whether removing permanent NLIS tags

Evidence – circumstantial evidence – inferences of guilt

Intent – consider the inferences that arose from all of the evidence relevant to general and specific intent and of the use that could be made of those inferences in the context of the burden of proof – whether other reasonable inference

Vendor and purchaser – sale of land – whether purchaser has beneficial interest in land before completion of contract – where purchase of land includes “all cattle” – implied terms – whether purchaser has “special property” in cattle

SOLICITORS:

Sen. Const. S Janes appeared for Queensland Police Prosecutions

Mr T.R. Morgans, Solicitor. Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Defendant

Reginald Dean Sauer is charged with numerous offences relating to cattle as follows:

1. That between the 2 April 2014 and the 10 May 2014 at Dalga in the State of Queensland, he stole an animal that is stock, namely cattle, the property of Steven Charles Beale.

2. That between 25 April 2014 and the 4 June 2014 at Lawgi Dawes in the State of Queensland, he with intent to facilitate the commission of a crime, branded an animal, namely cattle, with the registered brand of the owner of the said brand, namely Wayne Keith Sauer, without his permission.

3. That between 25 April 2014 and the 4 June 2014 at Lawgi Dawes in the State of Queensland, he defaced the registered brand on an animal that was stock, namely cattle.

4. Between 2 April 2014 and 14 May 2014 at Dalga, in the State of Queensland, he stole an animal that is stock, namely cattle, the property of William James Oram.

5. Between the 2 April 2014 and the 4 June 2014 at Lawgi Dawes in the Magistrates Court’s District of Rockhampton in the State of Queensland he removed a permanent tag that a head of cattle bore, and that he was not an inspector.

6. Between the 2 April 2014 and 4 June 2014 at Lawgi Dawes in the Magistrates Court’s District of Rockhampton in the State of Queensland he removed a permanent tag that a head of cattle bore, and that he was not an inspector.

The charges relate to the alleged movement of cattle from Dalga Station, illegal use of a brand, defacing brands on cattle and removing National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) tags after execution of the contract of sale of the property on 3 April 2014.

The Prosecution has called Aaron Jay Sparrow; Glenn Robin Powell; Steven Charles Beale; Geoffrey Maurice McNamara; William…

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 QPS v Sauer

Details

AGLC: QPS v Sauer [2017] QMC 1
Case: [2017] QMC 1
Decision Date: 14 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of QPS v Sauer, the defendant, Sauer, was charged with offences related to the alleged stealing of cattle, using a registered brand with criminal intention, defacing the brand, and removing permanent NLIS tags. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which needed to determine several legal issues. The primary question was whether Sauer had indeed stolen cattle, whether he used a registered brand with criminal intent, whether he defaced the brand, and whether he removed permanent NLIS tags. The court was also required to consider the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the inferences of guilt that could be drawn from it, as well as the burden of proof.

The court examined the evidence presented and considered the inferences that arose from all the evidence relevant to both general and specific intent. It was necessary to determine whether there was another reasonable inference that could be drawn from the evidence, which would potentially exonerate the defendant. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of whether the purchaser had a beneficial interest in the cattle before the completion of the contract for the sale of the land, which included "all cattle." The court also considered the implications of any implied terms and whether the purchaser had "special property" in the cattle.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the court concluded that Sauer was guilty of all the charges. The court found that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the defendant had stolen cattle, used a registered brand with criminal intention, defaced the brand, and removed permanent NLIS tags. The court also found that the inferences drawn from the evidence were consistent with the defendant's guilt and that there was no other reasonable inference that could exonerate him.

The final orders of the court found the defendant guilty of all charges. The specific penalties or sentences imposed by the court are not detailed in the provided text. However, it is clear that the court found sufficient evidence to convict Sauer on all counts related to the alleged offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Found guilty of all charges

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:	QPS v Sauer [2017] QMC 1
PARTIES:	Queensland Police Service (Prosecution) v Reginal Dean Sauer (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00116048/14(6)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Criminal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	14 February 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	31 October 2016 and 2 December 2016
A/MAGISTRATE:	M Morrow
ORDER:	Found guilty of all charges
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law – Whether stealing cattle – whether using registered brand with criminal intention – whether defacing brand – whether removing permanent NLIS tags Evidence – circumstantial evidence – inferences of guilt Intent – consider the inferences that arose from all of the evidence relevant to general and specific intent and of the use that could be made of those inferences in the context of the burden of proof – whether other reasonable inference Vendor and purchaser – sale of land – whether purchaser has beneficial interest in land before completion of contract – where purchase of land includes “all cattle” – implied terms – whether purchaser has “special property” in cattle
SOLICITORS:	Sen. Const. S Janes appeared for Queensland Police Prosecutions Mr T.R. Morgans, Solicitor. Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Defendant