R v Bates - [2010] QCA 139

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bates [2010] QCA 139

PARTIES:

R
v
BATES, Warren William
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 266 of 2009
DC No 2786 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where appellant was the instigator and leader of a criminal enterprise the object of which was to steal copper cable, trucks and other heavy machinery – where appellant was charged with breaking, entering and stealing; stealing; receiving, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where accomplices testified against the appellant in order to receive reduced sentences – where appellant convicted – whether trial judge’s instruction to jury as to the approach it should take with regard to that evidence was adequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – STRIKING OUT AND WARNING TO JURY TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE – where appellant was the instigator and leader of a criminal enterprise – where three accomplices involved in the operation testified against the appellant in order to receive reduced sentences – where one accomplice’s evidence included hearsay testimony against the appellant to which the appellant objected – where the trial judge explained to the jury that the evidence was admissible but did not return to the topic in his summing-up – whether the evidence was admissible

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 632, s 632(2), s 632(3)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

R v Lowe[2001] QCA 270, cited
R v S [1993] 2 Qd R 322; [1992] QCA 266, cited
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, cited
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22, cited

COUNSEL:

D R Kent for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Chesterman JA and the order he proposes.

CHESTERMAN JA: On 28 September 2009 in the District Court of Brisbane the appellant was, after a six day trial, convicted of one count of breaking, entering and stealing, two counts of stealing, one count of receiving and eight counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence. The next day, 29 September 2009, he was sentenced to eight terms of six years’ imprisonment and four terms of four years’ imprisonments, all to be served concurrently.

There is an appeal against the convictions on two grounds added by leave…

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 Bates

Details

AGLC: R v Bates [2010] QCA 139
Case: [2010] QCA 139
Decision Date: 11 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was the mastermind behind a criminal operation aimed at stealing copper cable, trucks, and other heavy machinery. He was charged with breaking and entering, stealing, receiving stolen property, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The appellant's accomplices testified against him in exchange for reduced sentences. Despite the appellant's conviction, he appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the accomplices' evidence and improperly admitted hearsay evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury on how to approach the accomplices' evidence were adequate, given that the accomplices testified in return for reduced sentences. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the hearsay evidence presented by one of the accomplices was properly admitted. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge did not adequately instruct the jury on the reliability of the accomplices' testimony and that the hearsay evidence should have been excluded.

The court found that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient to guide them on how to assess the credibility of the accomplices' evidence. The court also held that the hearsay evidence was admissible, as it was relevant to the case and the trial judge had provided appropriate warnings to the jury about its potential unreliability. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 Bates [2010] QCA 139
PARTIES:	R v BATES, Warren William (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 266 of 2009 DC No 2786 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2010
JUDGES:	Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where appellant was the instigator and leader of a criminal enterprise the object of which was to steal copper cable, trucks and other heavy machinery – where appellant was charged with breaking, entering and stealing; stealing; receiving, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where accomplices testified against the appellant in order to receive reduced sentences – where appellant convicted – whether trial judge’s instruction to jury as to the approach it should take with regard to that evidence was adequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – STRIKING OUT AND WARNING TO JURY TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE – where appellant was the instigator and leader of a criminal enterprise – where three accomplices involved in the operation testified against the appellant in order to receive reduced sentences – where one accomplice’s evidence included hearsay testimony against the appellant to which the appellant objected – where the trial judge explained to the jury that the evidence was admissible but did not return to the topic in his summing-up – whether the evidence was admissible Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 632, s 632(2), s 632(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A R v Lowe[2001] QCA 270, cited R v S [1993] 2 Qd R 322; [1992] QCA 266, cited Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, cited Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22, cited
COUNSEL:	D R Kent for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent