R v Doyle - [2001] NSWCCA 252

Reported Decision:
123 A Crim R 151

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v DOYLE [2001] NSWCCA 252

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60399/00

HEARING DATE(S): 21 May 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Edward Emmett DOYLE

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 57; Hulme J at 1; Howie J at 49

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70063/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hulme J

COUNSEL : Crown: DG Staehli
Appellant: CB Craigie

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth DPP
Appellant: DJ Humphryes

DECISION: See paragraph 79

- 26 -

No: 60399/00

SPIGELMAN CJ

HULME J

HOWIE J

REGINA -v- Edward Emmett DOYLE

JUDGMENT

Crimes Act

1. Those made and imposed by Mr K S Anderson SM on 7 February 1985 in respect of charges:

(i) That Edward Emmett Doyle, between the 2nd day of December 1981 and the 12th day of July 1983, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did impose upon the Department of Society Security, a department of the Commonwealth, by means of an untrue representation, to wit, that he was entitled to claim sickness benefits for the single rate in the name of Adam Scott Richardson, which said representation he knew to be untrue, with a view to obtaining money.

(ii) That Edward Emmett Doyle, between the 25th day of February 1982 and the 13th day of July 1983, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did impose upon Department of Society Security, a department of Commonwealth, by means of an untrue representation, to wit, that he was entitled to claim sickness benefits for the single rate in the name of Kevin Michael Roberts, which said representation he knew to be untrue, with a view to obtaining money.

(iii) That Edward Emmett Doyle between the 10th day of March 1983 and the 29th day of April 1983, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did impose upon the Department of Social Security, a department of the Commonwealth, by means of an untrue representation, to wit, that he was entitled to claim sickness benefits for the single rate in the name of Robert John Poole, which said representation he knew to be untrue, with a view to obtaining money.

(iv) That Edward Emmett Doyle, between the 25th day of January 1983 and the 27th day of June 1983, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did impose upon the Department of Social Security, a department of the Commonwealth, by means of an untrue representation, to wit, that he was entitled to claim sickness benefits for the single rate in the name of Donald William Matley, which said representation he knew to be untrue, with a…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2001] NSWCCA 252
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 252
Decision Date: 21 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case, R v Doyle, was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The defendant, Edward Emmett Doyle, sought to withdraw his pleas of guilty and challenge the convictions that arose from his involvement in multiple false pretences and fraud matters. The central issue before the court was whether Doyle's convictions should be quashed due to alleged improper conduct by the police during the investigation and prosecution process. The court needed to decide if there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Doyle's pleas of guilty were induced by threats or improper pressure from the police, which would warrant setting aside the pleas and quashing the convictions.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that there were indeed significant improprieties in the conduct of the police. These included a lengthy period of detention before Doyle was brought before a court, erroneous statements regarding Doyle's criminal record, the suggestion of a forged passport without any supporting charge, and the delay between charge and sentencing. Furthermore, the court noted that the charges brought against Doyle were under a section of the Crimes Act that carried a lower penalty than what the circumstances suggested he should have been charged under. The court also observed the unusual decision to proceed summarily despite the seriousness of the offence. The cumulative effect of these factors led the court to conclude that there was enough evidence of police impropriety to create suspicion regarding other aspects of the prosecution, ultimately leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Based on these findings, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed Doyle's appeal, quashed his convictions, and vacated the order limiting publication of the proceedings. The court also ordered that, subject to further order, there be no publication of the evidence or submissions in the proceedings except as expressly referred to in the formal reasons of the Court.

Orders