R v Alliston - [2012] QDC 41

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Alliston [2012] QDC 41

PARTIES:

R

v

CANDIDA LEE-BIANCA ALLISTON
(Applicant)

FILE NO:

DCR 79/2010

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

09 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Charters Towers

HEARING DATE:

27 January 2012

JUDGE:

Durward SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JOINDER – RETRIAL – Applicant charged with robbery in company as a s. 7 party – Co-accused charged with armed robbery in company with personal violence and unlawful wounding – whether applicant prejudiced by evidence admissible against co-accused only including admission against his interest – whether separate trials should be ordered in exercise of discretion

CASES:

R v Graham & Alliston [2011] QCA 187; Brennan v R (1936) 55 CLR 253; R v Lewis & Baira [1996] QCA 405; R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427; R v Stuart & Finch [1974] Qd R 297; R v Morrow & Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309; R v Roughan & Jones [2007] QCA 443; R v Hasler; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 1 Qd R 239; R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39; Ali v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 662; Webb & Hay v The Queen (1993 – 1994) 181 CLR 41; R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic.) (1987) 164 CLR 15; Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; R v Belford & Bound [2011] QCA 43

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 590AA and 597B

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the applicant solicitors
K Stone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Mr Collins for the accused Alliston seeks a separate trial. Alliston and her co-accused Graham were convicted on trial in 2011 in the District Court at Townsville but their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal (R v Graham & Alliston [2011] QCA 187). Hence the impending hearing is a retrial. The co-accused Graham had no interest in this application and his counsel Mr Walters and his solicitor withdrew from this hearing.

Background

The two accused had been charged with one count of unlawful wounding and one count of armed robbery with circumstances of aggravation, committed on or about 29 January 2009 at Townsville. Alliston was convicted in the first trial of robbery in company only, but acquitted of the unlawful wounding on a directed verdict. Hence she faces a retrial on a robbery in company charge only. Graham faces a retrial in the same proceeding on both counts: that is, armed robbery in company with personal violence and unlawful wounding.

The prosecution allegation is that Alliston “took the male complainant to the offence location with the intention to rob him, that Mr Graham demanded the money, that either Ms Alliston or Mr Graham snatched the money from (the complainant) Mr Plozza…

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 Alliston

Details

AGLC: R v Alliston [2012] QDC 41
Case: [2012] QDC 41
Decision Date: 09 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Alliston, was charged with robbery in company under section 7 of the Crimes Act 1958. His co-accused was charged with armed robbery in company with personal violence and unlawful wounding. The dispute centred on whether Alliston was prejudiced by evidence that was only admissible against his co-accused, including admissions against his interest. The issue was whether separate trials should be ordered, exercising the court's discretion.

The court considered whether the evidence against the co-accused, which was not admissible against Alliston, had the potential to prejudice his trial. The court examined the nature of the evidence, the relationship between the charges, and the potential impact on Alliston's right to a fair trial. The court found that while the evidence against the co-accused might be relevant to the case against Alliston, it did not necessarily prejudice his trial to the extent that separate trials were required. The court held that the discretion to order separate trials should be exercised sparingly and only when there was a clear and significant risk of prejudice.

The court concluded that Alliston was not prejudiced by the evidence against his co-accused. The application for separate trials was refused, and the trials proceeded together. The court's decision was based on the principle that the discretion to order separate trials should be exercised with caution and only when necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court determined that the potential for prejudice did not reach the threshold required for separate trials in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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 Alliston [2012] QDC 41
PARTIES:	R v CANDIDA LEE-BIANCA ALLISTON (Applicant)
FILE NO:	DCR 79/2010
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	09 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Charters Towers
HEARING DATE:	27 January 2012
JUDGE:	Durward SC, DCJ
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JOINDER – RETRIAL – Applicant charged with robbery in company as a s. 7 party – Co-accused charged with armed robbery in company with personal violence and unlawful wounding – whether applicant prejudiced by evidence admissible against co-accused only including admission against his interest – whether separate trials should be ordered in exercise of discretion
CASES:	R v Graham & Alliston [2011] QCA 187; Brennan v R (1936) 55 CLR 253; R v Lewis & Baira [1996] QCA 405; R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427; R v Stuart & Finch [1974] Qd R 297; R v Morrow & Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309; R v Roughan & Jones [2007] QCA 443; R v Hasler; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 1 Qd R 239; R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39; Ali v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 662; Webb & Hay v The Queen (1993 – 1994) 181 CLR 41; R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic.) (1987) 164 CLR 15; Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; R v Belford & Bound [2011] QCA 43
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 590AA and 597B
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the applicant solicitors K Stone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent