Legal Research
Cases
Quinlan v The Queen

Quinlan v The Queen

Case [2006] NSWCCA 284 11 September 2006

Appeal

Circumstantial Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
164 A Crim R 106

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: QUINLAN v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 284

HEARING DATE(S): 24 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; McClellan CJ at CL at 2; Hoeben J at 50

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – armed robbery – circumstantial case – evidence of flight – consciousness of guilt – whether error in admitting this evidence – whether error in characterising evidence as flight – other explanations of flight – whether other explanations prejudicial – whether evidence ought to have been led in a modified form – whether jury properly directed as to use of evidence of flight – whether verdict unreasonable – direction in relation to circumstantial evidence – nature of circumstantial evidence available

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Cornwall v R [2006] NSWCCA 116
Darkan v The Queen (2006) ALJR 1250
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Habib (2005) NSWCCA 223
R v Ho (2002) 130 A Crim R 545;
R v Power & Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407
R v Taranto [1999] NSWCCA 396

PARTIES: Ralph Reynold Quinlan (Appl)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/523

COUNSEL: P Byrne SC/I McLachlan (Appl)
V Lydiard (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Ross Hill & Associates (Appl)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0127

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Keleman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 6 February 2004

2006/523

TOBIAS JA
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HOEBEN J
MONDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 2006

QUINLAN, Ralph Reynold v REGINA

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with McClellan CJ at CL.

2 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant and Collin John William Iliffe were jointly charged with the offence of robbing Matthew Ernest Peiti of $53,678.85, being the property of the South West Rocks County Club Limited, when armed with an offensive weapon, namely a firearm, at South West Rocks on 17 November 2002. The appellant and the alleged co-offender pleaded not guilty. The appellant was tried and convicted. The alleged co-offender was discharged at the end of the Crown case.

3 The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years commencing on 7 January 2003 and concluding on 6 January 2013 with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months concluding on 6 July 2010. He appeals against his conviction. There is no application in relation to his sentence.

The prosecution case

4 The Crown case was circumstantial. When sentencing the appellant the trial judge made the following factual findings. It provides a useful summary of the Crown case:

“On Sunday 17 November 2002, the offender was driving an orange Monaro, which had been loaned to him by his brother over the weekend, and drove it from Port Macquarie, where he lived, to Kempsey. At about 6 or 6.30 pm that evening, the offender picked up from a laneway in Kempsey two fifteen year old girls,…

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 Quinlan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Quinlan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 284
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 284
Decision Date: 11 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quinlan v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, The Queen, appealed against the decision of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, which quashed the conviction of the applicant, Quinlan, for armed robbery. The core issue before the High Court was whether there was an error in the way the trial judge admitted and characterised certain evidence, specifically the evidence of flight, and whether the jury was properly directed on the use of such evidence in a circumstantial case.

The legal issues involved whether there was an error in admitting the evidence of flight, whether the evidence was correctly characterised as such, and if other explanations for the flight were prejudicial. Additionally, the court had to determine if the evidence should have been led in a modified form and whether the jury was adequately directed on the use of circumstantial evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the evidence of flight was inadequate and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

The High Court held that there was no error in admitting the evidence of flight. The court found that the evidence was properly characterised and that any other explanations for the flight did not render the evidence inadmissible or prejudicial. The court further held that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the use of circumstantial evidence was sufficient, and the jury was properly directed on the need for a high degree of satisfaction before convicting on circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsafe, given the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was reinstated.

Orders