R v Campbell - [1997] QCA 127

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 127
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 379 of 1996

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.

[R. v. Campbell]

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN JOHN CAMPBELL

(Applicant) Appellant
Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.

Judgment delivered 16 May 1997

Judgment of the Court.

APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - extortion - misappropriation of property - appeal against conviction and sentence for extortion and aggravated misappropriation - appellant and co-accused removed complainant’s collection of firearms and sent written demand for $40,000 to complainant - appellant gave evidence at trial that complainant owed debt of $20,000 to co-accused which he refused to repay - meaning of “without reasonable and probable cause” in s. 415(1)(a) of the Code - trial judge directed jury that test is objective - meaning of “dishonesty” in s. 408C - trial judge directed jury that objective test and subjective test had to be satisfied - whether trial judge’s summing-up sufficient.
SENTENCE - appellant sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after four months with operative period of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Counsel:	Applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf. Mrs L. Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	12 February 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 16 May 1997

On 24 May 1996, the appellant was convicted of two offences and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years, to be suspended after four months with an operative period of five years. He has appealed against his convictions and applied for leave to appeal against his sentence. The appellant represented himself and, subject to the matters discussed below, raised nothing which might lead to this Court setting aside his convictions or reducing his sentence.

One count on which the appellant was convicted was that between 28 October 1994 and 5 April 1995 he dishonestly applied to his own use property, namely a quantity of firearms the property of one Langham William Dale, and that at the time the value of the firearms was in excess of $5,000. There is no doubt about the events which constituted that offence, although the circumstances in which those events occurred are material.

Shortly stated, Dale had an extensive collection of firearms stored at a warehouse operated by a business named Kennards Storage and, while Dale was absent overseas, the appellant and a co- accused, Kenneth Edmund Robertson, surreptitiously entered the part of the warehouse where Dale’s firearms were stored, removed the firearms to another part of the warehouse which had been hired by the appellant, then removed them to a shed on a property in Toowoomba owned by the appellant until they were later moved by Robertson to his home in Sarina.

The only issue in respect of that count which requires consideration at this point is whether the appellant acted dishonestly. The trial judge told the jury that…

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 Campbell

Details

AGLC: R v Campbell [1997] QCA 127
Case: [1997] QCA 127
Decision Date: 16/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for extortion and aggravated misappropriation. The appellant and his co-accused had removed the complainant's collection of firearms and sent a written demand for $40,000 to the complainant. The appellant testified that the complainant owed a debt of $20,000 to the co-accused, which the complainant refused to repay. The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of certain provisions of the Code, specifically sections 415(1)(a) and 408C. The court had to determine the meaning of "without reasonable and probable cause" in section 415(1)(a) and "dishonesty" in section 408C. The trial judge had directed the jury that the test for these provisions was objective and that both objective and subjective tests had to be satisfied.

In addressing the legal issues, the court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate. The judge had correctly applied an objective test to the interpretation of "without reasonable and probable cause" in section 415(1)(a), aligning with the statutory wording and purpose. The court also found that the judge's direction regarding the requirement for both objective and subjective tests to be satisfied in determining "dishonesty" under section 408C was consistent with established legal principles. The judge's summing-up was deemed sufficient, as it accurately reflected the applicable legal standards. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of an objective approach in interpreting statutory provisions related to criminal offences, ensuring that the jury's understanding aligns with the legislative intent. The ruling affirmed the trial judge's methodology in directing the jury, underscoring the need for precise legal guidance in criminal trials. The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction and sentence as determined by the trial court.

Orders