SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Dale [2012] QCA 303
PARTIES:
R
v
DALE, Robert Norman
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 352 of 2011
DC No 580 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
6 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10 July 2012
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was convicted following a twenty day trial of seven fraud based offences – where appellant argued eight grounds of appeal – whether miscarriage of justice occurred having regard to circumstances in which count 1 was amended during the trial – whether the learned judge erred in failing to direct the jury that it was open on the evidence to conclude that the appellant was exercising an honest claim – whether the verdicts on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were unreasonable given the evidence which was adduced – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred when the learned judge dealt with the appellant’s attempt to make a submission that there was no case to answer – whether the trial judge erred in failing to warn the jury as to the manner in which evidence relevant to one group of counts could be used when they were considering their verdicts for counts in one of the other groups – whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the use which could be made of circumstantial evidence and of evidence from the witness Maynes – whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that, for each count, where more than one particular of dishonesty was given, in order for them to be satisfied of dishonesty, it was necessary that they be unanimous as to the particular, or particulars, of which they were satisfied – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred when the trial judge allowed an email from Rollings to Tobin to be admitted as evidence going to a representation made by the appellant but failed to direct the jury as to the use which could be made of that email
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where appellant sentenced on count 1 to seven and a half years imprisonment and to concurrent sentences of six years on each of the other counts – whether judge below erred in sentencing the appellant on the basis that the loss occasioned by his conduct constituting counts 1 to 6 and 8 was substantially more than the actual loss so occasioned as disclosed by the respondent’s accounting evidence
Continue reading R v Dale
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Dale [2012] QCA 303
- Case
- [2012] QCA 303
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in amending count 1 during the trial, whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury on the concept of honest claim, and whether the verdicts on several counts were unreasonable given the evidence presented. The appellant also argued that the trial judge did not adequately warn the jury about the use of evidence relevant to different counts, failed to instruct the jury on the use of circumstantial evidence and evidence from a specific witness, and did not clarify the necessity of unanimity on the particulars of dishonesty. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial judge's handling of an email from Rollings to Tobin was erroneous, as it was admitted as evidence but the jury was not properly directed on its use.
The court found that none of the appellant's grounds for appeal demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice had occurred or that the verdicts were unreasonable. The court was satisfied that the trial judge had properly managed the proceedings and provided adequate instructions to the jury. The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, finding no basis for a new trial. Regarding the sentence, the court ruled that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and denied leave to appeal against the sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal against sentence 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.