R v Briggs - [2000] VSCA 234

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 266 of 1998

THE QUEEN
	v.
DAVID LESLIE BRIGGS

---

JUDGES:	TADGELL and CHERNOV, JJ.A. and BALMFORD, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 November 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 234

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Attempting to pervert the course of justice by producing forged medical report to a judge – Whether act alleged had tendency to pervert the course of justice.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Psychiatric disorder not considered relevant by sentencing judge – Evidence of disorder received without objection by Court of Appeal – Sentence varied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms L.A. Taylor	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr J.P. Dickinson	Lethbridges

THE COURT:

Introduction

On 25 September 1998 the applicant, David Leslie Briggs, was presented in the County Court before Judge Harbison on one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth “by producing a forged medical report in the name Dr Laurence Sullivan to His Honour Judge Byrne in the County Court at Melbourne in support of an application for an adjournment of an appeal”.

After a trial of less than two days, including the jury’s deliberations, the applicant was convicted. On 19 October 1998 he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment commencing from that date. Pursuant to section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the Court ordered his release after serving two months of the total term, upon his giving security by recognisance in the sum of $2,000 to comply with the condition that he be of good behaviour for three years. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The applicant is a medical practitioner, who has practised as a general practitioner, but who ceased practising in July 1997. On 2 December 1996 he came before Judge Byrne in the County Court as an unrepresented appellant from a decision of the Magistrates’ Court in its criminal jurisdiction. It was common ground that the proceeding before His Honour was in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

The applicant applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that he had difficulties with his eyesight which caused him problems in reading the relevant documentary material. His Honour asked if he was prepared to give evidence in support of his application and he went into the witness box and was sworn. He then gave evidence to the effect that his right eye was legally blind, that his left eye had some long vision, that it was impossible for him to read, that a total corneal transplant had been performed on both his eyes on 20 September and that he was suffering gross pain which would continue for another few weeks.

In cross-examination Mr Champion, counsel for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, asked the applicant whether he had any medical report with him in…

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 Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2000] VSCA 234
Case: [2000] VSCA 234
Decision Date: 13 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Briggs involved the respondent, Briggs, who was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by providing a forged medical report to a judge. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where Briggs appealed against his conviction and sentence. Briggs argued that the act of providing a forged medical report did not have the tendency to interfere with the judicial process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the act of providing a forged medical report to a judge had the requisite tendency to pervert the course of justice. The court had to consider the nature of the act and its potential impact on the judicial process. The court also needed to determine whether the act was an attempt to influence the decision-making process of the judge.

In examining the case, the court considered the objective nature of the act and its potential impact on the judicial process. The court found that providing a forged medical report to a judge had the tendency to interfere with the judicial process by presenting false information to the court. The court held that the act had the requisite tendency to pervert the course of justice as it could potentially influence the judge's decision-making process. The court dismissed Briggs' appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

The High Court's decision in R v Briggs clarified the legal requirements for attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court held that an act must have the tendency to interfere with the judicial process to be considered an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The court also emphasised the importance of objective factors in determining whether an act has the requisite tendency. The final orders of the court were that Briggs' appeal was dismissed, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders