R v Adams - [1999] QCA 326

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 326
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 114 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v Adams]
THE QUEEN
v
JOANNE MICHELLE ADAMS

(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P
Davies JA
White J

Judgment delivered 20 August 1999
Judgment of the Court
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - AVERMENTS - UNCERTAINTY, DUPLICITY AND AMBIGUITY
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY - PARTICULAR CASES
Appeal against conviction of dishonest application of property in excess of $5,000 - whether conviction bad in law because proceedings were an abuse of the court's process - whether indictment duplicitous - whether unnecessary delay - where appellant pleaded guilty - public interest in the conviction of those guilty of a crime
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, followed
Criminal Code, s 408C, s 568(1C)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER
CONVICTION - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL
BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE
SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - GENERALLY
Application for leave to appeal against sentence - no prior criminal history - pregnant at time of sentence - theft in the course of employment and continued over period of time - no need or reason to steal - whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Viola (CA No. 105 of 1996, 5 June 1996), applied

Counsel: Mr B Devereaux for the applicant/appellant
Mr R Martin for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 12 July 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 20 August 1999

The appellant was convicted on her own plea of guilty on 25 March 1999 to an indictment charging that on diverse dates between the 18th day of April 1994 and the 5th day of April 1996 at Mooloolaba in the State of Queensland she dishonestly applied to her own use a sum of money being the amount of a general deficiency belonging to Sales Force Pty Ltd and that at that time she was an employee of Sales Force Pty Ltd and that the yield to her from the dishonest application of property was in excess of $5,000. It was admitted on her behalf for the purpose of sentencing that the amount dishonestly taken by her was $60,376.95 comprising 11 cheques totalling $10,376.95 and cash amounting to $50,000.
Notwithstanding her plea of guilty and the fact that, even now, it is not suggested on her behalf that she did not dishonestly take over $60,000 of the complainant's money, the appellant appeals against her conviction. She also seeks leave to appeal against her sentence which was one of four years imprisonment with a recommendation that she be eligible for parole after serving 15 months of that term.
The appeal against conviction was on two…

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 Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [1999] QCA 326
Case: [1999] QCA 326
Decision Date: 20/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams involved the appellant, Joanne Michelle Adams, who was convicted on her own plea of guilty to an indictment charging her with dishonestly applying to her own use a sum of money exceeding $5,000, belonging to her employer, Sales Force Pty Ltd. The offence took place between April 1994 and April 1996 in Mooloolaba, Queensland, while the appellant was an employee of the complainant. Adams appealed against her conviction on the grounds that the conviction was obtained through proceedings which constituted an abuse of the court's process and that the indictment was duplicitous. She also sought leave to appeal against her sentence of four years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving 15 months.

The court was required to decide whether the conviction was indeed bad in law due to an abuse of the court's process and whether the indictment was duplicitous. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the conviction, finding that the appellant's guilt was indisputable, as evidenced by her plea of guilty and the admission of the amount stolen for sentencing purposes. The court held that there was no abuse of process as the appellant was not unfairly deprived of the chance of an acquittal. Moreover, the indictment was not duplicitous and was permissible under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. The court also noted that the delay in the proceedings and the late production of evidence did not justify a stay of proceedings. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the four-year imprisonment term, coupled with the recommendation for parole after 15 months, was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's position of trust and the significant amount stolen.

The final orders of the court were the dismissal of the appeal against conviction and the refusal of the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders