R v Connelly - [2005] QCA 425

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Connelly [2005] QCA 425

PARTIES:

R
v
CONNELLY, Glen Jackson
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 413 of 2004
DC No 132 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - applicant charged with 12 counts of fraud - jointly charged with co-accused on eight counts - appellant convicted after trial on three counts but acquitted on all other counts - co-accused acquitted on all counts - applicant contends guilty verdicts unsafe primarily because of the verdicts of acquittal on the remaining counts - whether a rational explanation for the verdicts of guilty and the verdicts of acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE - appellant contends trial judge's summing up was unbalanced in that it failed to adequately summarize for the jury the appellant's case - appellant contends trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after the summing up - whether trial judge fairly and adequately put the defence case to the jury - whether trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after the summing up

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - trial judge admitted evidence tendered by prosecution consisting of two documents claimed to have been fabricated by the appellant to avoid conviction - appellant contends trial judge erred in admitting evidence said to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt - appellant contends evidence did not relate to any specific count in the indictment - appellant contends he was disadvantaged by the introduction of the new material by the prosecution on the ninth day of the trial - appellant contends the jury could not have been satisfied he created one of the documents - whether evidence was relevant to the element of dishonesty - whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied
R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244; (2000) 112 A Crim R 417, cited

COUNSEL:

T D Martin SC, with M C Chowdhury, for appellant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jacobson Mahony Lawyers (Southport) for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant, Glen Jackson Connelly, was charged with 12…

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 Connelly

Details

AGLC: R v Connelly [2005] QCA 425
Case: [2005] QCA 425
Decision Date: 18 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Connelly, was convicted on three counts of fraud following a trial where he was jointly charged with co-accused on eight other counts. The appellant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the court. The primary grounds for appeal were the unreasonability and insupportability of the verdicts, misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge, and improper admission of evidence.

The court was required to determine whether there was a rational explanation for the verdicts of guilt and the verdicts of acquittal. The appellant argued that the guilty verdicts were unsafe primarily because of the verdicts of acquittal on the remaining counts. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge adequately presented the defence case and whether the summing up was balanced. The appellant also contended that the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after the summing up. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that the appellant claimed demonstrated a consciousness of guilt but did not relate to any specific count in the indictment.

The court found that there was a rational explanation for the verdicts of guilty and the verdicts of acquittal. The court concluded that the trial judge fairly and adequately put the defence case to the jury and did not err in failing to discharge the jury after the summing up. The court also found that the evidence in question was relevant to the element of dishonesty and that the trial judge did not err in admitting it. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Connelly [2005] QCA 425
PARTIES:	R v CONNELLY, Glen Jackson (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 413 of 2004 DC No 132 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - applicant charged with 12 counts of fraud - jointly charged with co-accused on eight counts - appellant convicted after trial on three counts but acquitted on all other counts - co-accused acquitted on all counts - applicant contends guilty verdicts unsafe primarily because of the verdicts of acquittal on the remaining counts - whether a rational explanation for the verdicts of guilty and the verdicts of acquittal CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE - appellant contends trial judge's summing up was unbalanced in that it failed to adequately summarize for the jury the appellant's case - appellant contends trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after the summing up - whether trial judge fairly and adequately put the defence case to the jury - whether trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after the summing up CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - trial judge admitted evidence tendered by prosecution consisting of two documents claimed to have been fabricated by the appellant to avoid conviction - appellant contends trial judge erred in admitting evidence said to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt - appellant contends evidence did not relate to any specific count in the indictment - appellant contends he was disadvantaged by the introduction of the new material by the prosecution on the ninth day of the trial - appellant contends the jury could not have been satisfied he created one of the documents - whether evidence was relevant to the element of dishonesty - whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244; (2000) 112 A Crim R 417, cited
COUNSEL:	T D Martin SC, with M C Chowdhury, for appellant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jacobson Mahony Lawyers (Southport) for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent