R v Doolan - [2014] QCA 246

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Doolan [2014] QCA 246

PARTIES:

R
v
DOOLAN, Rosanna Felicity
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 161 of 2014
DC No 1708 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered 26 September 2014
Reasons delivered 30 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered 26 September 2014:

1.   The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2.   The guilty verdicts are set aside.

3.   A retrial is ordered on both counts.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was a civilian police prosecutor – where the appellant was in a relationship with Mr Roep – where Mr Roep was the defendant in a proceeding for common assault – where the appellant improperly accessed information on the Queensland Police Service (QPS) database in relation to the complainant in Mr Roep’s criminal proceeding – where the appellant was not authorised to access the information – where the appellant improperly provided the information to Mr Roep’s lawyer by way of email (count 1) – where the appellant applied to re-open Mr Roep’s sentence proceeding after it was finalised – where the appellant put forward a version of events at the re-opened sentence proceeding that was not in accordance with the prosecution brief of evidence – where the appellant made submissions at the re-opened sentence proceeding to reduce the fine and compensation orders (count 2) – where the appellant was found guilty at trial of two counts of misconduct in relation to public office – where the appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment on count 1 and 18 months imprisonment on count 2 – whether the guilty verdict on count 1 was against the weight of the evidence – whether the jury could infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant provided the information to Mr Roep’s solicitor by way of email with intent to benefit Mr Roep – whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the learned trial judge did not direct the jury that they must consider each count separately and consider only the evidence on each count in relation to that count – where the appellant contends that the learned trial judge erred in failing to give a separate consideration warning – where counsel for the appellant did not ask for redirections at trial – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where…

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 Doolan

Details

AGLC: R v Doolan [2014] QCA 246
Case: [2014] QCA 246
Decision Date: 26 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Doolan, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on two counts of misconduct in public office. The court heard an appeal against the conviction, focusing on whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and whether the jury could infer beyond reasonable doubt that Doolan provided information to a solicitor by email with intent to benefit another. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge's failure to provide certain directions to the jury amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the jury's verdict on count 1 was against the weight of the evidence. The court held that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Doolan provided information to the solicitor with the intent to benefit the other party. The court also found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury to consider each count separately and to disregard evidence of one count when considering the other amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge's failure to provide a general propensity warning constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against conviction was allowed, the guilty verdicts were set aside, and a retrial was ordered on both counts. The court held that the trial judge's errors in not directing the jury properly had the potential to result in a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a retrial to ensure a fair trial for the appellant. The court did not interfere with the trial judge's finding that there was a case to answer, as this was not challenged on appeal.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal against conviction, set aside the guilty verdicts, and order a retrial on both counts. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials to prevent miscarriages of justice and to ensure that verdicts are based on the correct legal standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered 26 September 2014:

1. The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2. The guilty verdicts are set aside.

3. A retrial is ordered on both counts.

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 Doolan [2014] QCA 246
PARTIES:	R v DOOLAN, Rosanna Felicity (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 161 of 2014 DC No 1708 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered 26 September 2014 Reasons delivered 30 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered 26 September 2014: 1. The appeal against conviction is allowed. 2. The guilty verdicts are set aside. 3. A retrial is ordered on both counts.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was a civilian police prosecutor – where the appellant was in a relationship with Mr Roep – where Mr Roep was the defendant in a proceeding for common assault – where the appellant improperly accessed information on the Queensland Police Service (QPS) database in relation to the complainant in Mr Roep’s criminal proceeding – where the appellant was not authorised to access the information – where the appellant improperly provided the information to Mr Roep’s lawyer by way of email (count 1) – where the appellant applied to re-open Mr Roep’s sentence proceeding after it was finalised – where the appellant put forward a version of events at the re-opened sentence proceeding that was not in accordance with the prosecution brief of evidence – where the appellant made submissions at the re-opened sentence proceeding to reduce the fine and compensation orders (count 2) – where the appellant was found guilty at trial of two counts of misconduct in relation to public office – where the appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment on count 1 and 18 months imprisonment on count 2 – whether the guilty verdict on count 1 was against the weight of the evidence – whether the jury could infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant provided the information to Mr Roep’s solicitor by way of email with intent to benefit Mr Roep – whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the learned trial judge did not direct the jury that they must consider each count separately and consider only the evidence on each count in relation to that count – where the appellant contends that the learned trial judge erred in failing to give a separate consideration warning – where counsel for the appellant did not ask for redirections at trial – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where…