R v Bird - [1993] QCA 422

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 422

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 193 of 1993
Brisbane [R. v. Bird]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
ALAN STEWART BIRD

(Appellant)

________________________________________________________________
_

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR JUSTICE DAVIES

MR JUSTICE CULLINANE

________________________________________________________________

J	udgment delivered 21/10/1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.
________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Appellant convicted of unlawful use of motor vehicle - Whether trial judge erred in ruling inadmissible a conversation between appellant and another on the ground it was self-serving - Whether conversation should be considered together with later separate incriminating conversations for purposes of ascertaining admissibility
*Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd v. Beves (1968)* *118 CLR 581* *R v. Beck [1990] 1 Qd.R. 30* *R v. Duncan (1981) 73 Cr.App.R. 359* *R v. Kochnieff (1987) 33 A.Crim.R. 1* *R v. Sharp [1988] 1 All E.R. 65*
Counsel:	Mr M.J. Byrne for the Respondent Mr B. Devereaux for the Appellant
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent Legal Aid Office for the Appellant
Date(s) of Hearing:	16 September 1993
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 193 of 1993
Brisbane
Before	The Chief Justice Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Cullinane

[R. v. Bird]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
ALAN STEWART BIRD

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 21/10/1993

The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Southport on 14 May 1993 of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with the aggravating circumstance that he interfered with part of that motor vehicle. He appeals against that conviction. His notice of appeal contains three grounds, only the first of which was argued. It was that the learned trial judge erred in law in ruling inadmissible a conversation between the appellant and Richard Goldstone on the ground that it was a self-serving statement.

The facts leading to and constituting the commission of the offence were as follows. On 28 May 1990 the appellant's red Ford utility was involved in a collision resulting in front end damage. On 3 November 1990 a charcoal coloured Ford S Pack sedan owned by Jean Collingborn was stolen. In that same month a vehicle matching the description of the stolen vehicle was observed at the home of the appellant. Also in that month the appellant discussed with Goldstone, a panel beater, how to "cut and shut" a car; that is how to cut a car in half and replace one half with that of another vehicle. The appellant then made arrangements for the front half of the charcoal Ford sedan in his possession to be attached to rear half of his red utility. In the course of that job the engine number was cut out of the chassis of the charcoal coloured Ford and another one inserted.

The job was completed in late November or December 1990 and the

joined parts were then painted red.

There…

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 Bird

Details

AGLC: R v Bird [1993] QCA 422
Case: [1993] QCA 422
Decision Date: 21/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against a conviction for unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The appellant, Bird, contested the trial judge's ruling that a conversation between Bird and another individual was inadmissible as self-serving evidence. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge erred in excluding the conversation and whether it should have been considered alongside later incriminating statements for admissibility purposes.

The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of the conversation between Bird and another person, which the trial judge deemed self-serving. The appeal focused on whether this conversation should be considered in conjunction with subsequent separate incriminating conversations to assess its admissibility. The court needed to clarify the criteria for admissibility of such evidence, particularly in the context of determining whether the conversation was inherently unreliable or whether it should be evaluated alongside other incriminating statements.

The court concluded that the trial judge had erred in excluding the conversation on the basis of it being self-serving. The conversation should have been assessed in the context of the entire body of evidence, including the later incriminating statements. The court found that the conversation, when considered alongside the subsequent statements, did not render it inherently unreliable. The court emphasised the importance of evaluating the admissibility of evidence in the context of all relevant evidence, rather than in isolation.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial ordered. The court's decision underscored the necessity of a comprehensive approach to admissibility, ensuring that evidence is evaluated in the context of all available information, rather than being dismissed based on isolated characteristics.

Orders