R v Croll - [2004] QCA 255

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Croll [2004] QCA 255

PARTIES:

R
v
CROLL, Leonard Theodore
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 112 of 2004
DC No 2856 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 July 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mullins 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 – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE –where the appellant was convicted on two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – whether the trial Judge exhibited partisanship in the summing-up – whether the trial Judge properly instructed the jury on the nature of the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – whether the regularity of the trial process can be challenged

RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: The appellant was convicted in the District Court on two counts (counts 2 and 3 on the indictment) of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The jury was unable to agree on one other similar count, and the appellant was acquitted on a count of wilful damage and a count of assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation. He appeals against his conviction on the two counts of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. For the first of the convictions, he was given 12 months probation, and for the second, 100 hours community service. Convictions were recorded, and he was disqualified from driving for six months. Before this Court, the appellant represented himself. At the trial, he was represented by a senior and experienced member of the criminal bar.

The convictions arose out of conflict on the road between the appellant, who was driving a Toyota Celica sedan, and Wesley Mathers who was driving a Mitsubishi van, with his brother Daniel as a passenger. The events occurred in the evening of 13 August 2002 in the northern suburbs of Brisbane.

The first count, on which the jury could not agree, concerned the appellant’s tailgating the van, or cutting in and out in front of it, and likewise with a vehicle driven up ahead by Mr Mathers senior, and the count was left to the jury on those particulars.

The evidence from the brothers was that the appellant was following their van at a distance of only one and a half to two metres behind. They were travelling at 40-60 kms per hour. At one stage, Wesley Mathers tapped his brakes to send…

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 Croll

Details

AGLC: R v Croll [2004] QCA 255
Case: [2004] QCA 255
Decision Date: 30 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Croll, the appellant was convicted of two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The conviction was appealed on the basis that the trial judge exhibited partisanship and failed to properly instruct the jury on the nature of the evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge exhibited partisanship in their summing up to the jury, and whether the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the nature of the evidence. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge's summing up was not impartial and that the jury was not properly instructed on how to evaluate the evidence. The crown argued that the summing up was fair and that the trial judge provided the jury with all necessary instructions.

The High Court considered the summing up as a whole and determined that the trial judge did not exhibit partisanship. The court found that the trial judge's comments were not such that a reasonable person would think the trial judge had made up their mind on the issues before reaching a conclusion. The court also found that the trial judge had properly instructed the jury on the nature of the evidence and the need to evaluate it critically. The court emphasised that the summing up should be considered as a whole, and that isolated comments should not be taken out of context. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

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 Croll [2004] QCA 255
PARTIES:	R v CROLL, Leonard Theodore (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 112 of 2004 DC No 2856 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 July 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mullins 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 – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE –where the appellant was convicted on two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – whether the trial Judge exhibited partisanship in the summing-up – whether the trial Judge properly instructed the jury on the nature of the evidence
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – whether the regularity of the trial process can be challenged
RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent