Legal Research
Cases
R v Callaghan

R v Callaghan

Case [1993] QCA 419 20 October 1993

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 419
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 232 of 1993

Brisbane
[R. v. Callaghan]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

-v-

JAMIE ALAN CALLAGHAN

Appellant

The President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Thomas

Judgment delivered the 20th day of October, 1993 separately, all agreeing in the order to be made.

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - evidence - admissibility of consistent self-serving statements of an accused -
comparison of English and Australian streams of law - threefold test of admissibility as per

Tooke (1990) 90 Cr.App.R. 417 not followed.

Criminal law - directions to jury - trial Judge not obliged to refer to all the evidence.

Criminal law - conduct of prosecution - inappropriate use of the dignity of the office of Crown prosecutor in address to jury.

Counsel:	Mr W. McMillan for appellant
Mr J. Henry for respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs Witheriff Nyst for appellant
Director of Prosecutions for respondent

Hearing date: 6th October, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 232 of 1993

Before

The President

Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Thomas

[R. v. Callaghan]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

JAMIE ALAN CALLAGHAN

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE PRESIDENT

Judgment delivered 20/10/93

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the joint judgment of Pincus

JA. and Thomas J.

I agree with their Honours' conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, and with their reasons in relation to grounds 4 and 5.

Their Honours' views in relation to ground 1 are highly persuasive, but I find it unnecessary to reach a firm conclusion on the legal issues which they have carefully analysed. In my opinion, the exculpatory record of interview upon which the appellant sought to rely did not meet the tests upon which he based his argument. It is sufficient to note that the collision and the appellant's apprehension occurred six hours before the interview sought to be relied on, more than enough to deny the existence of any temporal connexion between the exculpatory statements which the appellant made and the two earlier events.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 232 of 1993

Brisbane

The President
Mr Justice Pincus

Mr Justice Thomas

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

-v-

JAMIE ALAN CALLAGHAN

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A. AND THOMAS J.

Judgment delivered the 20th day of October, 1993

The appellant was convicted by a District Court jury of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle in question was taken from a carpark at Fishermans Wharf situated on the Spit at Southport. A Crown witness, Mrs Dowdy, saw the vehicle (a brown Gemini) being driven erratically not far from the carpark. She passed the traffic by taking a left hand lane, and stopped at the next set of lights in Marine Parade. The Gemini then came up behind her and drove…

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 Callaghan

Details

AGLC: R v Callaghan [1993] QCA 419
Case: [1993] QCA 419
Decision Date: 20/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland heard an appeal by Jamie Alan Callaghan against his conviction of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in disallowing cross-examination of a witness about an exculpatory statement made by the appellant during a police interview. The appellant argued that his self-serving statements should have been admitted to demonstrate consistency and support his credibility. The court examined the admissibility of such statements under Australian law, contrasting it with the English approach. The court concluded that self-serving statements should not be admitted as they do not meet the truth of their contents, and there is no authority to support their admission for showing consistency or reaction to police investigation. The court found no error in the trial judge's ruling.

Further, the court addressed whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the significance of the appellant's blood alcohol concentration. The appellant's counsel aimed to argue that his client's high blood alcohol level precluded him from driving recklessly. The court found no error in the trial judge's direction, which advised the jury that while they could consider the appellant's intoxication, there was no expert evidence on the specific effects of such a blood alcohol level. The court also considered the Crown prosecutor's inappropriate remarks during his address, which were not supported by evidence. However, the court found that the trial judge's overall directions to the jury balanced the prosecutor's remarks, preventing any miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction. The judges agreed that no errors were made that warranted setting aside the conviction.

Orders