R v Acton - [2001] QCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Acton [2001] QCA 155

PARTIES: R
v
ACTON, Kenneth William

FILE NO/S: CA No 323 of 2000
DC No 555 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 27 April 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 6 April 2001

JUDGES: McPherson JA, White and Dutney JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: 1. Appeal allowed
2. Conviction and verdict set aside
3. New trial ordered on count 4 in the indictment

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - particular circumstances involving miscarriage - improper rejection of evidence

CRIMINAL LIABILTY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - duress - where evidence of prior threats towards the appellant was excluded

Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 187(1), s 190
Criminal Code, s 31(1)(d), s 31(1)(d)(i), s 31(4)

Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered
R v Pickard [1959] Qd R 475, considered
R v P [2000] 2 Qd R 401, considered

COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
S Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: At about 1.10 am on 5 June 1999 a police vehicle was travelling along Ross River Road, Condon, when one of the occupants, Const Schifilliti heard sounds coming from the Riverside Autos car yard on the left. He spoke to the driver, Sgt Burrow, who stopped the car, reversed, and shouted out "What are you doing?" Constable Schifilliti alighted from the vehicle and ran to the car yard. As he did so, he saw a male person "exiting" the driver's side of a white Landcruiser vehicle in the yard. Constable Schifilliti gave chase. His quarry fled to the rear of the car yard, where the constable heard the fence rattling as if someone were climbing it. A police dog handler and his dog were summoned and located the appellant concealed in vegetation in the premises at the rear of the car yard. He was arrested and taken to the police station.

The outcome of these events was that the appellant was charged with four offences: (1) stealing a set of vehicle keys the property of Mike Carney Motors Pty Ltd; or, alternatively, (2) receiving that set of keys having reason to believe they had been stolen; (3) breaking and entering the premises of S & S Thomson Investments Pty Ltd and Realty Pty Ltd with intent to commit an indictable offence; and (4) attempting to unlawfully use a motor vehicle without the consent of one J R Hall, who was the person in possession of it. These offences were alleged to have been committed, in the case of counts 1 and 2, on or about 4 June 1999; and, in the case of counts 3 and 4,…

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 R v Acton

Details

AGLC: R v Acton [2001] QCA 155
Case: [2001] QCA 155
Decision Date: 27 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Acton, the appellant was convicted of charges including dangerous operation of a vehicle and driving without a licence. The appellant appealed against his conviction, claiming a miscarriage of justice due to the exclusion of evidence that could have supported a defence of duress. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the conviction and considering whether the trial judge had improperly excluded evidence of prior threats that could have been relevant to the appellant's defence. The court's decision hinged on whether the exclusion of this evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice, as per the criteria established in prior jurisprudence.

The court considered whether the exclusion of the evidence of prior threats amounted to a miscarriage of justice under the principles set out in Mackenzie v The Queen. It was necessary to examine whether the excluded evidence could have reasonably affected the appellant's decision to commit the offence and whether its exclusion was a significant factor in the appellant's conviction. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal standards in determining the admissibility of the evidence under the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and the Corrective Services Act. The court's reasoning focused on whether the trial judge had misapplied the law in rejecting the proffered evidence of prior threats, and whether this error was substantial enough to necessitate a new trial.

Upon reviewing the trial judge's handling of the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the exclusion of the evidence of prior threats was a significant error. The court determined that the evidence could have been relevant to establishing the defence of duress, and its exclusion constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge had not appropriately considered the relevance and admissibility of the proffered evidence. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and verdict, and ordered a new trial on count 4 in the indictment. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all potentially exculpatory evidence is properly considered in criminal trials, particularly when it pertains to defences such as duress.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction and verdict set aside

3. New trial ordered on count 4 in the indictment

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:	R v Acton [2001] QCA 155
PARTIES:	R v ACTON, Kenneth William
FILE NO/S:	CA No 323 of 2000 DC No 555 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 April 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, White and Dutney JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Conviction and verdict set aside 3. New trial ordered on count 4 in the indictment
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - particular circumstances involving miscarriage - improper rejection of evidence CRIMINAL LIABILTY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - duress - where evidence of prior threats towards the appellant was excluded Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 187(1), s 190 Criminal Code, s 31(1)(d), s 31(1)(d)(i), s 31(4) Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered R v Pickard [1959] Qd R 475, considered R v P [2000] 2 Qd R 401, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf S Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent