R v Carlin - [2018] QCA 118

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Carlin [2018] QCA 118

PARTIES:

R
v
CARLIN, Thomas James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 134 of 2017
SC No 851 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 15 June 2017 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 May 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Gotterson JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of three counts of possession of a dangerous drug and one count of receiving a stolen firearm with reason to believe the firearm had been stolen – where the drugs and gun the subject of the four counts were found together in a black duffle bag at a motel at which the appellant was residing, albeit in a room not occupied by the appellant – where a number of items were found in the black duffle bag that inculpated the appellant – where the Crown case against the appellant was wholly circumstantial – where the appellant told a number of lies to police during the course of an emergent search and an interview – where the appellant did not give evidence at trial – where the appellant submits that where the prosecution relies on a defendant’s interview containing exculpatory statements there is no difference between those statements and those made by a defendant giving evidence at trial – where the appellant submits that a direction of the kind described in R v McBride [2008] QCA 412 should have been given to the jury – where the present case was not one of ‘word against word’ – whether the jury could have fallen into the error of supposing that theirs was a binary choice of total acceptance of the appellant’s unsworn denials or total acceptance of the Crown case, such that a failure to give a McBride direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant told a number of lies in the course of an emergent search and police interview – where the appellant lied about the length of his stay at the motel and falsely denied that he had any large sums of cash in his room – where the prosecution did not seek to make use of these lies at trial as indicating a consciousness of guilt – where the issue in this case was whether the appellant owned the drugs and gun found in the black duffle bag – where proof of possession did not depend upon his lies – where the appellant submits that a direction of the kind described in Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234 ought to have been given…

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 Carlin

Details

AGLC: R v Carlin [2018] QCA 118
Case: [2018] QCA 118
Decision Date: 12 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted on four counts: three counts of possession of a dangerous drug and one count of receiving a stolen firearm, with reason to believe the firearm had been stolen. The drugs and gun, the subject of the four counts, were found together in a black duffle bag at a motel where the appellant was residing, albeit in a room not occupied by the appellant. Several items in the black duffle bag inculpated the appellant. The Crown case against the appellant was wholly circumstantial, and the appellant did not give evidence at trial.

The appellant's submissions centred on the trial judge's failure to direct the jury regarding the significance of the appellant's lies told to police during an emergent search and an interview. The appellant submitted that where the prosecution relies on a defendant's interview containing exculpatory statements, there is no difference between those statements and those made by a defendant giving evidence at trial. The appellant argued that a direction of the kind described in R v McBride should have been given to the jury. The appellant also submitted that drawing attention to the issue of the appellant's lies would not have been to the appellant's advantage, and that a failure to direct the jury as to the use that they could make of the appellant's lies resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury as to the use that they could make of the appellant's lies did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The lies told by the appellant to police were not central to the Crown case, as proof of possession did not depend upon the appellant's lies. The Court found that the trial judge had given a sufficient direction in relation to the appellant's lies, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Carlin [2018] QCA 118
PARTIES:	R v CARLIN, Thomas James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 134 of 2017 SC No 851 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 15 June 2017 (Applegarth J)
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 May 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of three counts of possession of a dangerous drug and one count of receiving a stolen firearm with reason to believe the firearm had been stolen – where the drugs and gun the subject of the four counts were found together in a black duffle bag at a motel at which the appellant was residing, albeit in a room not occupied by the appellant – where a number of items were found in the black duffle bag that inculpated the appellant – where the Crown case against the appellant was wholly circumstantial – where the appellant told a number of lies to police during the course of an emergent search and an interview – where the appellant did not give evidence at trial – where the appellant submits that where the prosecution relies on a defendant’s interview containing exculpatory statements there is no difference between those statements and those made by a defendant giving evidence at trial – where the appellant submits that a direction of the kind described in R v McBride [2008] QCA 412 should have been given to the jury – where the present case was not one of ‘word against word’ – whether the jury could have fallen into the error of supposing that theirs was a binary choice of total acceptance of the appellant’s unsworn denials or total acceptance of the Crown case, such that a failure to give a McBride direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant told a number of lies in the course of an emergent search and police interview – where the appellant lied about the length of his stay at the motel and falsely denied that he had any large sums of cash in his room – where the prosecution did not seek to make use of these lies at trial as indicating a consciousness of guilt – where the issue in this case was whether the appellant owned the drugs and gun found in the black duffle bag – where proof of possession did not depend upon his lies – where the appellant submits that a direction of the kind described in Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234 ought to have been given…