R v Crawford

[1992] QCA 99

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 099

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 256 of 1991
Before the Court of Appeal
Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Pincus Mr Justice Shepherdson

T H E Q U E E N

v.

EDWARD GREGORY CRAWFORD

Delivered the 13th day of May 1992

The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Bundaberg

on 6 September 1991 of stealing five heifers and a steer, the property of Peter John Honeywill, some time between 2 November

1989 and 2 February 1991. He was sentenced to three months

imprisonment which he had completed by the time this appeal was

heard. He appeals against his conviction and had sought leave

to appeal against sentence. However, before us the appellant,

who appeared in person, abandoned his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant had initially intended also to apply for leave to call fresh evidence, but before us he abandoned this application also.

At the trial, and before this Court, it was common ground that

the five heifers and a steer, the subject of the charge against the appellant, had been on his property for over six months, were considered by him to be his property, and had previously been owned by Mr Honeywill. The question which the jury had to determine was whether the appellant had bought them from Mr

Honeywill, because there was no other honest basis for his claim

to possession and ownership. If they were satisfied beyond

reasonable doubt that he had not so bought them they were entitled to convict. That question depended upon a conflict of testimony between the appellant on the one hand and Mr Honeywill

on the other, on some aspects of which Mr Honeywill was corroborated by other witnesses. The conflict arose in the following way.

In November 1989 the appellant and his wife purchased a freehold

grazing property from Mr Honeywill. It was part of a larger

holding, the other part of which Mr Honeywill retained. The

sale included 30 cows, 30 calves and one bull. Mr Honeywill's version of events leading up to and surrounding delivery pursuant to that contract was as follows.

Mr Honeywill mustered some of his cattle on 14 January 1990,

partly to enable the appellant to select the cattle to be

transferred and partly to collect a semi-trailer load of cattle

to be sent for sale. On that day the appellant selected 35 cows

and 29 calves. These were placed in the one paddock. On that occasion Mr Honeywill, John Witcherley and the appellant were present. About a week later the final selection occurred in the

appellant's yard. As only 29 calves were acceptable to the appellant the parties then agreed that Mr Honeywill would deliver and the appellant would accept 29 calves and 31 cows in

performance of that part of the contract. At the time of

selection the calves were unbranded; the cows were branded with Mr Honeywill's brand 5tf. The calves and cows were then branded

by the appellant with the brand 9EU, a brand which Mr Honeywill

transferred to the appellant upon sale (subject to the relevant government department approving the appellant's use of the

brand). The calves were earmarked and castrated, also by the

appellant, where appropriate. The evidence of Mr John Witcherley, who was present on both of these occasions, was to

the same effect as that of Mr Honeywill. The evidence of Mr

Glen Stayte as to the second occasion corroborated the numbers

of cattle selected and rejected.

The appellant's version of the events on both occasions was

materially different as to the number of calves present. He said that on both occasions 24 calves only were made available to him. He agrees that on the second occasion he did the

branding, earmarking and castrating, that on the first occasion

Witcherley was present and that on the second both Witcherley

and Stayte were present, though there was some dispute about how

long Stayte was present.

The appellant swore that about a month after this he managed to

lure 5 heifers owned by Mr Honeywill into a yard by attracting

them with lick. They carried the 5tf brand. He rang Mr

Honeywill and told him, in effect, that he would accept the five

heifers in lieu of the calves which Mr Honeywill had failed to deliver. Mr Honeywill accepted this reluctantly and, in the

appellant's presence, cross-branded them with the 9EU brand. The steer in question, according to the appellant, was one of

the 24 calves delivered on the earlier occasion. It had been

branded and ear-marked so the appellant cross-branded it with

the brand 9EU, but did not earmark it.

Mr Honeywill denied that the events deposed to in the preceding

paragraph ever occurred.

In the following July a Mrs Baldry, a retired dairy farmer who

lived on a farm near the appellant's property, saw five heifers

on her property. She yarded them and contacted the appellant because, knowing that he had bought Mr Honeywill's property, she

thought that they were his. She noticed only one brand on the

cattle but could not say what it was. However, she could say that it was not a recent brand because hair had grown over it.

The appellant collected these heifers and removed them by means

of a horse float. The appellant does not dispute this but says that these were the heifers which he had acquired from Mr

Honeywill in lieu of the shortfall in calves.

It was also common ground between the Crown witnesses and the

appellant that, at the time they were seized by the police, all six beasts carried both the 5tf and the 9EU brands and the 9EU brand had been recently placed on the five heifers. The

appellant's explanation for the latter was that when Mr Honeywill had cross-branded them with the 9EU brand prior to delivery to the appellant, he had done so inefficiently so that

the brands were merely "hair brands", that is brands which did

not sufficiently sear the skin to remain indefinitely; and consequently upon re-taking them from Mrs Baldry he was obliged to brand them with that brand again. Mr Honeywill, on the other

hand, in addition to denying that the incident involving the

branding and delivery by him of the heifers had ever taken

place, said that he had seen those heifers on the appellant's

property with only Mr Honeywill's brand on them, that is the 5tf

brand, had taxed the appellant about that and the appellant had

told him he would muster that paddock soon and that Mr Honeywill

could then have them back. He had later seen those cattle with the 9EU brand on them as well, had confronted the appellant, and

threatened to call in the Stock Squad whereupon the appellant

had insisted that they were his, the appellant's, cattle.

The jury therefore had to resolve a clear conflict between the evidence of Mr Honeywill, corroborated in some respects by both Witcherley and Stayte, on the one hand and, on the other, that

of the appellant. If 31 cows and 29 calves were delivered to the appellant on the second occasion deposed to by Mr Honeywill

and Witcherley and the only occasion deposed to by Stayte and if, as Mr Honeywill and Witcherley said, none of the calves had

been branded prior to the 9EU brand being placed on them on that

occasion, there can be no honest explanation for the appellant having possession of and claiming ownership of five heifers and

one steer all bearing both the 5tf and the 9EU brands. This seems to be a plain case in which the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of one of two conflicting versions of events. This they were entitled to do and there was nothing unsafe or

unsatisfactory in their verdict.

The appellant advanced 17 detailed submissions before us,

drawing on suggested contradictions in evidence, prejudicial assertions and evidence and errors and omissions in summing up to support his contention that the jury's verdict was at least unsafe and unsatisfactory. We have considered all of these. We do not see any point in going through them one by one in order

to reject them which we do as grounds for allowing the appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND C.A. No. 256 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

v.

EDWARD GREGORY CRAWFORD

(Appellant)

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Pincus Mr Justice Shepherdson

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 13th day of May 1992

MINUTE OF ORDER:Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - VERDICTS - UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY

- appellant convicted of stealing 5
heifers and 1 steer - whether jury could
have been satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant had not bought

the beasts

Counsel:Appellant appeared on his own behalf

Mr P Ridgway for the Crown

Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions for the Crown

Hearing date(s):26 March 1992

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND C.A. No. 256 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

v.

EDWARD GREGORY CRAWFORD

(Appellant)

____________________________________________________

Davies JA
Pincus JA
Shepherdson J

____________________________________________________

Reasons for Judgment of the Court delivered on the

13th day of May 1992

____________________________________________________

"APPEAL DISMISSED"
____________________________________________________