R v. East - [2008] QCA 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v East [2008] QCA 325

PARTIES:

R
v
EAST, Neil Frank
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 3 of 2008
DC No 185 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Mackenzie AJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where Australian Federal Police officers attended at the appellants work address – where appellant asked the officers to leave, then locked the door to the premises – where appellant convicted of two counts of obstructing a Commonwealth public official and two counts of unlawfully detaining a person – whether it was open to the jury to find that the officers had been unlawfully detained against their will

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where, prior to attending the appellant’s work address, the Australian Federal Police officers served a restraining order under s 17 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) at the appellant’s home address – where the officers made a tape recording of abusive remarks by the appellant – where admission of the tape recording was objected to on the basis that it was irrelevant and prejudicial – whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the tape recording

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 355

O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] HCA 44, considered
R v Awang (2004) 2 Qd R 672; [2004] QCA 152, applied
R v Bond [1906] 2 KB 389, applied
R v O’Malley [1964] Qd R 226, cited
R v O’Regan [1961] Qd R 78, cited

COUNSEL:

D T Locantro (solicitor) for the appellant
M O Plunkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Locantro Lawyers for the appellant
Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the order proposed by Daubney J and with his Honour’s reasons for the order.

MACKENZIE AJA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Daubney J.

DAUBNEY J: On 6 December 2007 the appellant was found guilty after trial by jury of:

(a) Two counts of obstructing a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) Two counts of unlawfully confining a person.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with another sentence being served by the appellant.

The appellant has appealed against the convictions, contending they were unsafe. An application for leave to appeal against sentence was not pursued, the appellant having served the term…

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. East

Details

AGLC: R v East [2008] QCA 325
Case: [2008] QCA 325
Decision Date: 17 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, who had been convicted of obstructing Commonwealth public officials and unlawfully detaining a person, appealed against the conviction, contending that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable and that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a tape recording. The appellant was convicted after Australian Federal Police officers attended his workplace, where he locked the door after asking them to leave. The jury found that the officers were unlawfully detained against their will. The appellant also argued that the trial judge should not have admitted a tape recording of abusive remarks made by the appellant prior to the officers attending his workplace.

The court considered whether it was open to the jury to find that the officers were unlawfully detained against their will and whether the trial judge erred in admitting the tape recording. The court found that it was open to the jury to find that the officers were unlawfully detained against their will, as the appellant locked the door to the premises after asking them to leave. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the tape recording, as it was relevant to the appellant's state of mind and did not unfairly prejudice him.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The jury's verdict was reasonable, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the tape recording. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 East [2008] QCA 325
PARTIES:	R v EAST, Neil Frank (appellant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 3 of 2008 DC No 185 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2008
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Mackenzie AJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where Australian Federal Police officers attended at the appellants work address – where appellant asked the officers to leave, then locked the door to the premises – where appellant convicted of two counts of obstructing a Commonwealth public official and two counts of unlawfully detaining a person – whether it was open to the jury to find that the officers had been unlawfully detained against their will APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where, prior to attending the appellant’s work address, the Australian Federal Police officers served a restraining order under s 17 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) at the appellant’s home address – where the officers made a tape recording of abusive remarks by the appellant – where admission of the tape recording was objected to on the basis that it was irrelevant and prejudicial – whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the tape recording Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 355 O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] HCA 44, considered R v Awang (2004) 2 Qd R 672; [2004] QCA 152, applied R v Bond [1906] 2 KB 389, applied R v O’Malley [1964] Qd R 226, cited R v O’Regan [1961] Qd R 78, cited
COUNSEL:	D T Locantro (solicitor) for the appellant M O Plunkett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Locantro Lawyers for the appellant Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution for the respondent