R v Clapson - [2004] QCA 488

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Clapson [2004] QCA 488

PARTIES:

R
v
CLAPSON, Daron Charles
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 125 of 2004
DC No 42 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 October 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – appeal against conviction for burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm – whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury about the deficiencies of identification evidence – where the trial judge did not err in direction to jury that circumstantial evidence may overcome deficiencies in the evidence of positive identification was not in error – appeal dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a conversation into trial – where evidence formed part of the factual matrix to be put before the jury

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, considered

R v Coxon [2002] SASC 165; SCCRM No 311 of 2001, 24 May 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

H Walters for the appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JERSEY CJ:de I agree with Jones J.

JERRARD JA: In this appeal I have read the reasons for judgment and orders proposed by Jones J, and respectfully agree with those.

JONES J: On 17 March 2004 the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company. Both convictions related to events occurring on 25 March 2002 at Airlie Beach in the State of Queensland.

The appellant appeals against these convictions raising only two issues. Firstly, he contends that the learned trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the use to be made of circumstantial evidence to overcome any weaknesses in the complainant’s evidence positively identifying the appellant as the assailant. (grounds (e) and (g)). Secondly, he contends that the learned trial judge erred in allowing into evidence a conversation between a Ms Blewitt and a co-accused, John Raiteri, to be admitted on the appellant’s trial. (ground (f))

Background facts

The complainant lived in an apartment in Airlie Beach. Sometime before the offence he shared that apartment with Ms Blewitt for a period of a couple of months. She ceased to live at the premises on 30 January 2000 but in circumstances of a dispute between her and the appellant…

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 Clapson

Details

AGLC: R v Clapson [2004] QCA 488
Case: [2004] QCA 488
Decision Date: 17 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clapson, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm. The appeal against conviction was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury regarding the deficiencies in the identification evidence presented, and whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of a conversation into the trial. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury about the deficiencies of the identification evidence were inadequate, and that the admission of the conversation evidence was improper. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury that circumstantial evidence could overcome the deficiencies in the identification evidence was not in error, and that the evidence of the conversation was properly admitted as it formed part of the factual matrix to be put before the jury.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the appellant regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's direction to the jury about the deficiencies of the identification evidence. The court found that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on this point, and that there was no error in the direction given. The court also considered the argument that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of a conversation into the trial. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted as it formed part of the factual matrix to be put before the jury, and that there was no error in its admission. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court made no orders for costs.

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 Clapson [2004] QCA 488
PARTIES:	R v CLAPSON, Daron Charles (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 125 of 2004 DC No 42 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bowen
DELIVERED ON:	17 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 October 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – appeal against conviction for burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm – whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury about the deficiencies of identification evidence – where the trial judge did not err in direction to jury that circumstantial evidence may overcome deficiencies in the evidence of positive identification was not in error – appeal dismissed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a conversation into trial – where evidence formed part of the factual matrix to be put before the jury Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, considered R v Coxon [2002] SASC 165; SCCRM No 311 of 2001, 24 May 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	H Walters for the appellant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent