R v Corcoran - [2013] QCA 148

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Corcoran [2013] QCA 148

PARTIES:

R
v
CORCORAN, William Arthur
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 260 of 2012
DC No 332 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Philippides and Boddice JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant was convicted of fraud in relation to an insurance claim for the contents of a stolen motor vehicle – where police conducting a search on the appellant’s property found items that were the subject of the contents insurance claim – where the appellant alleged he had informed the insurer that he had found those items, and that he had not received a payout in respect of them – where on appeal, the appellant alleged bias on the part of the trial judge in the form of apparent prejudgment of his case – where the trial judge’s intervention occurred in the absence of the jury and sought merely to establish what evidence the Crown proposed to rely on and what guidance should be given to the jury in respect of it – where the appellant complained that the trial judge’s summing up was unbalanced, referring repeatedly to his having lied but failing to mention what he said were lies of the Crown witnesses – where the trial judge gave the appropriate Edwards and Zoneff directions in relation to statements capable of being regarded as lies – where the evidence of the Crown witnesses was largely unchallenged and supported by documentary and recorded evidence – where the appellant alleged that his barrister was incompetent in not pursuing the alleged lies by Crown witnesses and in advising him against giving evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of insurance fraud and fined $1,200 to be paid within 12 months, in default two months imprisonment, and was ordered to pay compensation to the defrauded insurer – where the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is based on his assertion that he was wrongly convicted, and that his wife received a less harsh penalty – where the applicant’s wife pleaded guilty to a less serious offence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48, cited

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 Corcoran

Details

AGLC: R v Corcoran [2013] QCA 148
Case: [2013] QCA 148
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Corcoran, appealed against his conviction for fraud in relation to an insurance claim for the contents of a stolen motor vehicle. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge was biased, the summing up was unbalanced, and his legal representation was incompetent. He further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court of appeal considered these arguments and provided its reasoning and outcome.

The court addressed the appellant's claims of bias on the part of the trial judge, noting that the judge's intervention occurred in the absence of the jury and was intended to establish what evidence the Crown proposed to rely on and what guidance should be given to the jury in respect of it. The court found that the trial judge's actions did not amount to bias. Regarding the summing up, the court observed that the trial judge gave appropriate directions in relation to statements capable of being regarded as lies, including those made by Crown witnesses. The court determined that the evidence of the Crown witnesses was largely unchallenged and supported by documentary and recorded evidence. The court also rejected the appellant's claims about his legal representation, finding that the appellant's barrister acted competently. Lastly, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

In light of the above, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court of appeal also refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court concluded that the appellant's arguments did not warrant interference with the trial judge's decision.

The court ordered that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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 Corcoran [2013] QCA 148
PARTIES:	R v CORCORAN, William Arthur (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 260 of 2012 DC No 332 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 May 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Philippides and Boddice JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant was convicted of fraud in relation to an insurance claim for the contents of a stolen motor vehicle – where police conducting a search on the appellant’s property found items that were the subject of the contents insurance claim – where the appellant alleged he had informed the insurer that he had found those items, and that he had not received a payout in respect of them – where on appeal, the appellant alleged bias on the part of the trial judge in the form of apparent prejudgment of his case – where the trial judge’s intervention occurred in the absence of the jury and sought merely to establish what evidence the Crown proposed to rely on and what guidance should be given to the jury in respect of it – where the appellant complained that the trial judge’s summing up was unbalanced, referring repeatedly to his having lied but failing to mention what he said were lies of the Crown witnesses – where the trial judge gave the appropriate Edwards and Zoneff directions in relation to statements capable of being regarded as lies – where the evidence of the Crown witnesses was largely unchallenged and supported by documentary and recorded evidence – where the appellant alleged that his barrister was incompetent in not pursuing the alleged lies by Crown witnesses and in advising him against giving evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of insurance fraud and fined $1,200 to be paid within 12 months, in default two months imprisonment, and was ordered to pay compensation to the defrauded insurer – where the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is based on his assertion that he was wrongly convicted, and that his wife received a less harsh penalty – where the applicant’s wife pleaded guilty to a less serious offence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48, cited