R v Chevalley - [1996] QCA 180

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 180
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 40 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Chevalley]

T H E Q U E E N

STEPHEN RICHARD CHEVALLEY

Appellant

Macrossan CJ
Davies JA
Byrne J

Judgment delivered : 04/06/1996

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST

SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Summing-up - whether judge inappropriately invited jury to act on his views of the facts - as a whole, summing-up in this respect not defective.
CRIMINAL LAW - Indictment - wrong circumstance of aggravation charged - application of proviso to s.668E(1) Criminal Code; R. v. Ayres [1984] AC 447 considered - criminal law - sentence - armed robbery - whether sentences manifestly excessive.
Counsel:	S. Hamlyn-Harris for appellant M.J. Byrne Q.C. for Crown
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for appellant Director of Prosecutions for Crown

Hearing date: 3 May 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 04/06/1996

At his trial in the Brisbane District Court the appellant was convicted on a charge that on 30 March 1994, at Lutwyche, he stole, with actual violence, money belonging to the Bank of Queensland. The indictment also charged a circumstance of aggravation: that the appellant was "armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a handgun" during the robbery. By its verdict, the jury found that the appellant was so armed.

The notice of appeal challenges the conviction on two grounds. First, it is said to be unsafe and unsatisfactory on the footing that weaknesses in the prosecution's circumstantial case warranted an acquittal. Secondly, the weapon was a replica revolver, which means, it is said, that the circumstance of aggravation was not proved. Leave was granted to add two additional grounds. One relates to the admissibility of evidence; the other to a direction concerning the jury's approach to fact-finding.

Circumstantial case

On 30 March 1994 a man was filmed by security cameras robbing the Lutwyche branch of the Bank of Queensland. Still photographs derived from the film showed him wearing a dark baseball cap, and carrying what looked like a handgun. He wore running shoes, a dark stocking over his face and, as the garment was described by a teller, a long-sleeved, white T-shirt. $5,900 was taken, including about thirty-seven $50 notes.

Six days after the robbery, the police searched a house where the appellant lived. A wad of thirty-four $50 notes was found behind a microwave oven. The police asked the appellant where the money came from. He was, he claimed, "minding it for a friend". Asked who his friend was, the appellant said: "I don't know". In his bedroom, the police found a pair of Dunlop sandshoes not unlike the shoes worn by the robber.

The house was searched again next day. Underneath the house, resting on a beam, the police found a black, baseball-style cap that contained a black stocking. A black, replica handgun was inside another black cap found there.

On 2 June 1994 the police executed…

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 Chevalley

Details

AGLC: R v Chevalley [1996] QCA 180
Case: [1996] QCA 180
Decision Date: 4/06/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chevalley came before a court, where the defendant, Chevalley, was charged with criminal offences. The nature of the dispute centred around the propriety of the summing-up delivered by the trial judge to the jury, specifically whether the judge had improperly influenced the jury by inviting them to act on his views of the facts. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining this contention to determine whether the trial judge's summing-up was defective.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judge's summing-up contained any inappropriate invitation to the jury to act on the judge's personal views of the facts. The court needed to assess if the summing-up, taken as a whole, was acceptable or if it contained errors that could potentially prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. The analysis involved a careful review of the language used by the judge and whether it could be construed as improperly guiding the jury in reaching their verdict.

The court found that while certain parts of the summing-up might have been open to criticism, when considered in the context of the entire summing-up, they did not reach the level of defectiveness that would warrant a new trial. The court emphasised that the summing-up, as a whole, did not inappropriately invite the jury to act on the judge's views of the facts. It held that the judge's comments, though potentially misleading if taken in isolation, were not so prejudicial when viewed in the entirety of the summing-up. Therefore, the court concluded that the summing-up was not defective to the extent that it would warrant a new trial.

The final orders of the court affirmed the conviction of the defendant, Chevalley, and dismissed the appeal on the grounds of the summing-up. The decision underscored the importance of assessing the summing-up in its entirety rather than in fragmented parts, ensuring that the trial process remains fair and unbiased.

Orders