R v Campbell & Malayta Summary

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 530

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 397 of 1994 C.A. No. 398 of 1994
Brisbane
BeforeFitzgerald P. Davies J.A. Dowsett J.
[R. v. Campbell] [R. v. Malayta]

T H E Q U E E N

RAYMOND KENNETH CAMPBELL
and

PETER JOSEPH MICHAEL MALAYTA (Appellants)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 07/12/1994

On 6 September 1994 the appellants were convicted in the District Court at Townsville of one count of break, enter and steal. They have appealed against the conviction on the basis of a statement made by the trial judge in directing the jury.

The prosecution case depended upon the evidence of a woman who was the de facto wife of the appellant, Malayta, and an associate of the appellant, Campbell. She gave evidence of what occurred on the relevant night, 11 April 1993, including statements made in the course of planning the offence and on the return of the appellants and others, when she received $500 from the proceeds, making her an accomplice.

In the course of his summing up, the trial judge warned the jury of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and explained why that warning was given. Unfortunately, in the course of doing so, he spoke of the risk "that an accomplice may seek to implicate a co-offender", implying, it was argued for the appellants, that they were guilty of the offence.

While the term "co-offender" plainly ought not have been used, what the trial judge said on that single occasion is not to be taken in isolation but in the context of the overall summing up.

It was not disputed that he correctly emphasised to the jury that the appellants were innocent unless proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution evidence. There is no basis for a conclusion that the jury might have been misled in any way, and the appeal should be dismissed.

J	udgment delivered 07/12/1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - Directions to jury - prosecution case depended on evidence of appellant's de facto as to events 18 months previously - trial judge warned judge of danger of relying upon uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice - used the term "co-offender" - whether the term could be placed in context of overall summing up - whether jury was misled

Counsel:Ms D. Richards for the Appellants

R. Martin for the Crown

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the Appellant

Directors of Prosecutions for the Crown

Date/s of Hearing:28 November 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Court of Appeal heard appeals from Raymond Kenneth Campbell and Peter Joseph Michael Malayta, who had been convicted in the District Court at Townsville of one count of break, enter and steal. The appellants challenged the conviction on the basis of a statement made by the trial judge in directing the jury. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the evidence of a woman who was the de facto wife of Malayta and an associate of Campbell. The woman testified about the events of the night in question, including statements made during the planning of the offence and upon the return of the appellants and others, when she received $500 from the proceeds, making her an accomplice.

The appellants' primary contention was that the trial judge's use of the term "co-offender" during his summing up was inappropriate and prejudicial. The trial judge had warned the jury of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and had explained the rationale behind this warning. However, the appellants argued that the term "co-offender" implied that they were guilty of the offence. The Court of Appeal considered whether this isolated use of the term could have misled the jury, given the overall context of the trial judge's summing up. The court noted that it was undisputed that the trial judge correctly emphasised the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found no basis for concluding that the jury was misled by the trial judge's remark.

In light of the overall context of the trial judge's summing up, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The court held that the single use of the term "co-offender" should not be taken in isolation but should be considered within the entire summing up. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's instructions correctly conveyed the principle that the appellants were innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution evidence. The appeals were therefore dismissed.

R v Campbell & Malayta

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established