R v Davidson - [2022] QCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davidson [2022] QCA 22

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVIDSON, Miranda Ellen
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 288 of 2021
DC No 32 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Emerald – Date of Conviction: 8 October 2021 (Muir DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 11 February 2022
Date of Publication of Reasons: 25 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2022

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo and Bond JJA

ORDERS:

Orders delivered: 11 February 2022

1. Appeal allowed

2. New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge failed to direct the jury as to the facts that had to be proved for the mental element of “dishonesty” – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge erred in excluding evidence of a business practice – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge failed to direct the jury as to the meaning of “forgery” – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(b), s 408C(2), s 408C(2)(d)

Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (2010) 4 ACTLR 114; [2010] ACTSC 20, cited
Connor v Blacktown District Hospital [1971] 1 NSWLR 713, considered
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493; [1998] HCA 7, considered
R v Lyons[2021] QCA 136, considered
R v Quagliata[2019] QCA 45, cited

COUNSEL:

A M Hoare and M Heelan for the appellant
N Rees for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

RK Law for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with Bond JA.
McMURDO JA: For the reasons stated by Bond JA, I joined in the orders which were made at the conclusion of the hearing…

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 Davidson

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson [2022] QCA 22
Case: [2022] QCA 22
Decision Date: 25 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davidson was convicted of fraud as an employee involving $30,000 or more and was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years. The appeal raised several grounds, including whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of certain terms and whether the trial judge improperly excluded evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether these alleged errors constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the mental element of "dishonesty," the meaning of "forgery," and whether the exclusion of evidence of a business practice constituted an error. The court considered whether these issues warranted a new trial.

The court found that the use of the term "forged" in the particulars and jury instructions was misleading and did not clarify the appellant's knowledge, belief, or intent. The court held that the trial judge should have insisted on clarity to properly instruct the jury on the term's meaning. Additionally, the court noted that the misdirection on the term "forgery" was addressed in the context of other appeal grounds. Consequently, the court concluded that the errors justified a new trial.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The orders were delivered on 11 February 2022.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders delivered: 11 February 2022

1. Appeal allowed

2. New trial ordered

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

As to appeal ground 3:(a)The use of the verb “forged” in the particulars and the instructions to the jury obfuscated what was meant particularly insofar as it was intended to shed light on the appellant’s knowledge, belief or intent.(b)The trial judge should have insisted on clarity as to what was intended by the particular so that she could then have instructed the jury on the meaning of the term.(c)I would regard this ground as dealt with by my reasoning in relation to appeal ground 4.Conclusion The success of appeal ground 4 justified the orders which the Court made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Davidson [2022] QCA 22
PARTIES:	R v DAVIDSON, Miranda Ellen (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 288 of 2021 DC No 32 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Emerald – Date of Conviction: 8 October 2021 (Muir DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 11 February 2022 Date of Publication of Reasons: 25 February 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2022
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo and Bond JJA
ORDERS:	Orders delivered: 11 February 2022 1. Appeal allowed 2. New trial ordered
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge failed to direct the jury as to the facts that had to be proved for the mental element of “dishonesty” – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge erred in excluding evidence of a business practice – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of a single count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 21 months with an operational period of four years – whether the primary judge failed to direct the jury as to the meaning of “forgery” – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(b), s 408C(2), s 408C(2)(d) Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (2010) 4 ACTLR 114; [2010] ACTSC 20, cited Connor v Blacktown District Hospital [1971] 1 NSWLR 713, considered Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493; [1998] HCA 7, considered R v Lyons[2021] QCA 136, considered R v Quagliata[2019] QCA 45, cited
COUNSEL:	A M Hoare and M Heelan for the appellant N Rees for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	RK Law for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent