R v Campbell

Case [2019] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Campbell [2019] QCA 127

PARTIES:

R
v
CAMPBELL, Catherine Faye
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 73 of 2018
DC No 224 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 28 February 2018 (Burnett DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2019

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   On counts 4 and 6 of the indictment:

(a)  the appeal is allowed;

(b)  the convictions are set aside;

(c)  a new trial is ordered.

2.   The appeal is dismissed in relation to counts 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the indictment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted at trial of one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation, three counts of making a false declaration, and two counts of perjury – where the appellant alleged that the trial judge’s failure to direct on the use of hearsay evidence, combined with the trial judge’s refusal to admit evidence of an intention to marry, rendered the appellant’s conviction on the count of aggravated fraud unreasonable – where the appellant further alleged that the Crown had led “incomplete evidence” in failing to undertake further investigations of telephone accounts for some phone numbers that the appellant had provided at an earlier civil trial, rendering the convictions on the remaining counts unreasonable – whether the matters raised were capable of rendering the verdicts unreasonable – whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt on the evidence before it

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted at trial of one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation, three counts of making a false declaration, and two counts of perjury – where the trial judge admitted a document into evidence as a business record pursuant to s 93(1) of the Evidence Act 1977 – whether the maker of a record from information told to him by another meets the description “the person who supplied the information” for the purposes of s 93(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1977, on its proper construction – whether the document was wrongly admitted – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted – whether the proviso in s 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code should be applied on the basis that no miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted at trial of one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation, three counts of making a false declaration, and two counts of perjury – where the trial judge ruled that evidence of the appellant’s conversation with a witness was admissible…

Continue reading R v Campbell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Campbell [2019] QCA 127
Case
[2019] QCA 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Campbell, the appellant appealed against his convictions for one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation, three counts of making a false declaration, and two counts of perjury. The trial involved allegations of the appellant procuring a property transfer from a deceased man. The appellant contended that several errors in the trial process rendered his conviction unreasonable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's failure to direct on the use of hearsay evidence, refusal to admit evidence of an intention to marry, and the Crown's alleged failure to undertake further investigations of certain telephone accounts rendered the verdicts unreasonable or amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also examined whether certain evidence was improperly admitted or rejected, including a document admitted as a business record and evidence of a conversation with a witness.

The court found that the trial judge's failure to direct on the use of hearsay evidence and refusal to admit evidence of an intention to marry did not render the verdict unreasonable as the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the evidence before it. The court further held that the Crown's failure to investigate certain telephone accounts did not result in a miscarriage of justice because there was no evidence before the court as to whether any investigation occurred or what the accounts could have disclosed. The court also determined that certain evidence was properly admitted, including the business record and the admission against interest.

The appeal was dismissed in relation to counts 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the indictment. However, on counts 4 and 6, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On counts 4 and 6 of the indictment:

(a) the appeal is allowed;

(b) the convictions are set aside;

(c) a new trial is ordered.

2. The appeal is dismissed in relation to counts 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the indictment.

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.