R v Capps; R v Youngson - [2020] QCA 5

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Capps; R v Youngson [2020] QCA 5

PARTIES:

In CA No 159 of 2019:

R
v
CAPPS, Billy-Jak
(appellant)

In CA No 161 of 2019:

R
v
YOUNGSON, Benjamin Samuel
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 159 of 2019
CA No 161 of 2019
DC No 2148 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Convictions: 16 May 2019 (Shanahan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Lyons SJA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

In Appeal No 159 of 2019:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

In Appeal No 161 of 2019:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the appellants were each found guilty and convicted of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence – where the appellants were each sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years – where the central issue at trial was whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the robbery – where the trial Judge gave the jury standard directions in relation to deciding the case on the evidence – where the trial Judge directed the jury that they were not to speculate but were entitled to draw reasonable inferences from proven facts – where the trial Judge characterised the case for determination by the jury as not a circumstantial case – where the appellants appeal against their convictions on the ground that the trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the partially circumstantial nature of the Crown case – where the respondent submitted the directions to the jury sufficiently apprised the jury of the evidence and law to be considered – whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a circumstantial evidence direction – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

R v ABD[2019] QCA 72, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan SC, with M Jackson, for the appellant, Capps
P F Richards for the appellant, Youngson
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Behlau Murakami Grant for the appellant, Capps
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Youngson
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice J and the orders proposed by his Honour.
LYONS SJA: I agree with the reasons of Boddice J and the orders proposed.
BODDICE J: On 16 May 2019, a jury found each of Billy-Jak Capps (“Capps”) and Benjamin Samuel Youngson (“Youngson”) guilty of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence. Each was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. A parole release date was fixed at 15 May 2020.
Capps and Youngson each appeal those convictions. The…

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 Capps; R v Youngson

Details

AGLC: R v Capps; R v Youngson [2020] QCA 5
Case: [2020] QCA 5
Decision Date: 4 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Capps and Youngson, appeal their convictions and sentences for the offence of robbery in company with personal violence, committed on or about 8 December 2017 at East Brisbane. Each appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. The central issue at trial was whether Capps and Youngson were the perpetrators of the robbery. The appellants contend that the trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the partially circumstantial nature of the Crown case, and that this failure constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial Judge should have provided a direction to the jury regarding the partially circumstantial nature of the Crown case. The appellants argued that the trial Judge should have explicitly directed the jury on the need to approach the evidence with caution and to not convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. The respondent submitted that the trial Judge’s directions sufficiently apprised the jury of the evidence and law to be considered, and that no additional direction was necessary. The court had to determine whether the trial Judge's summing up was adequate or if it constituted a legal error leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the trial Judge's summing up and concluded that, while the trial Judge did not explicitly use the term "circumstantial evidence," the directions given to the jury were sufficient to ensure they understood the nature of the evidence and the standard of proof required. The court emphasised the importance of considering the summing up as a whole and found that the jury was adequately directed to not speculate and to draw reasonable inferences from the proven facts. Given the nature of the evidence and the trial Judge’s overall directions, the court found no miscarriage of justice occurred. Consequently, the appeals against conviction were dismissed.

In Appeal No 159 of 2019, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. In Appeal No 161 of 2019, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 159 of 2019:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

In Appeal No 161 of 2019:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Capps and Youngson each appeal those convictions. The sole ground of appeal in each case is that the learned trial Judge erred in law, and a miscarriage of justice occurred when his Honour failed in his summing up to direct the jury on the partially circumstantial nature of the Crown case.Background The offence was committed on or about 8 December 2017 at East Brisbane. Capps was aged 26 at the time of the offence and 28 at the date of sentence. Youngson was aged 28 at the time of the offence and 30 at the date of sentence. The Crown case was that the appellants and the complainant, a 30 year old male, had spent time together at a hotel. During that period, the appellants became aware the complainant was in possession of a significant sum of money. The robbery was committed after the complainant left the hotel. Items stolen were money from the complainant’s wallet and the complainant’s mobile phone. Violence was inflicted by both appellants, punching and kicking the complainant whilst stealing the wallet and telephone from him. The central issue at trial was whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the robbery.Evidence CCTV footage from within the hotel depicted the complainant in the company of the two appellants for a period prior to the robbery. The interplay between the appellants and the complainant was primarily with Capps. CCTV footage taken from a camera within the car park area depicted Youngson leaving the hotel first, heading down a laneway towards a neighbouring street. Minutes later, the complainant and Capps were depicted leaving together. They went down the laneway. It was in an area adjacent to the laneway that the robbery took place. The complainant gave evidence that the perpetrators of the robbery were Capps and Youngson. He had spoken to those two people towards the end of the evening whilst inside the hotel. He was speaking to one of them more than the other. The male he spoke to the most was described as blond, about the complainant’s height or slightly taller and of athletic build. The other male was slightly shorter and stockier, with brown hair. The complainant started speaking to them in the smoking room after he had won about $2,000 playing pokies. He had $1,400 in his wallet. He counted it numerous times. The complainant left the hotel at about 11.30 pm in the evening. He said he left with the two males he had been speaking to in the hotel. He had spent at least an hour with those two people in the hotel. The complainant was walking to his vehicle to collect some items. He then intended to walk the short distance home. He used the east exit into the car park to travel to where he had parked his vehicle. The complainant said, as soon as he turned the corner into Manilla Street, he was struck from behind. At that point, both men were slightly behind him. The complainant fell to the ground on his back. Both men hit him numerous times in the face. They were asking for his phone. One was pulling out his wallet.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The central issue at trial was whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the robbery.Evidence CCTV footage from within the hotel depicted the complainant in the company of the two appellants for a period prior to the robbery. The interplay between the appellants and the complainant was primarily with Capps. CCTV footage taken from a camera within the car park area depicted Youngson leaving the hotel first, heading down a laneway towards a neighbouring street. Minutes later, the complainant and Capps were depicted leaving together. They went down the laneway. It was in an area adjacent to the laneway that the robbery took place. The complainant gave evidence that the perpetrators of the robbery were Capps and Youngson. He had spoken to those two people towards the end of the evening whilst inside the hotel. He was speaking to one of them more than the other. The male he spoke to the most was described as blond, about the complainant’s height or slightly taller and of athletic build. The other male was slightly shorter and stockier, with brown hair. The complainant started speaking to them in the smoking room after he had won about $2,000 playing pokies. He had $1,400 in his wallet. He counted it numerous times. The complainant left the hotel at about 11.30 pm in the evening. He said he left with the two males he had been speaking to in the hotel. He had spent at least an hour with those two people in the hotel. The complainant was walking to his vehicle to collect some items. He then intended to walk the short distance home. He used the east exit into the car park to travel to where he had parked his vehicle. The complainant said, as soon as he turned the corner into Manilla Street, he was struck from behind. At that point, both men were slightly behind him. The complainant fell to the ground on his back. Both men hit him numerous times in the face. They were asking for his phone. One was pulling out his wallet. The complainant, who described the lighting as “good enough to see – it wasn’t pitch black”,[1] struggled with the attackers whilst lying on his back. He described them as standing over him and kneeling down because they had to get pretty close to him. The men knew where his wallet was and went for it as the first thing. They were telling him to give them his phone.[1]AB60/20. The complainant said the men took his wallet and phone before running down Manilla Street towards his vehicle. He estimated the attack lasted for under a minute. The complainant said it took him a few seconds to realise what had happened to him. He then stood up and walked home. His girlfriend immediately telephoned the police. Whilst waiting for the police, they tried to telephone his mobile. Eventually someone answered and spoke to the complainant’s girlfriend. That person said his name was Nick and he had found the mobile under the tyre of a car. The complainant said he was covered in blood and bruises. He was later found to have a broken nose. He could not feel his front teeth for approximately three months.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Capps; R v Youngson [2020] QCA 5
PARTIES:	In CA No 159 of 2019: R v CAPPS, Billy-Jak (appellant) In CA No 161 of 2019: R v YOUNGSON, Benjamin Samuel (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 159 of 2019 CA No 161 of 2019 DC No 2148 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Convictions: 16 May 2019 (Shanahan DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	4 February 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Lyons SJA and Boddice J
ORDERS:	In Appeal No 159 of 2019: Appeal against conviction dismissed. In Appeal No 161 of 2019: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the appellants were each found guilty and convicted of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence – where the appellants were each sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years – where the central issue at trial was whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the robbery – where the trial Judge gave the jury standard directions in relation to deciding the case on the evidence – where the trial Judge directed the jury that they were not to speculate but were entitled to draw reasonable inferences from proven facts – where the trial Judge characterised the case for determination by the jury as not a circumstantial case – where the appellants appeal against their convictions on the ground that the trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the partially circumstantial nature of the Crown case – where the respondent submitted the directions to the jury sufficiently apprised the jury of the evidence and law to be considered – whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a circumstantial evidence direction – whether there was a miscarriage of justice R v ABD[2019] QCA 72, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan SC, with M Jackson, for the appellant, Capps P F Richards for the appellant, Youngson J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Behlau Murakami Grant for the appellant, Capps Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Youngson Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent