R v Edwards - [2006] QDC 406

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2006] QDC 406

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

V

GARY JOHN SIMON EDWARDS

FILE NO/S:

767/06

DIVISION:

Criminal Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application to exclude evidence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 December 2006

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

Evidence which is not probative of either:

(i) the manner and form of the transactions; or

(ii) any explanation made by the defendant as to the manner and form in which they were conducted;

is not admissible.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – evidence as to motive – ruling sought as to admissibility – ruled inadmissible

MENS REA – criminal responsibility - fault element of offence – whether provided by s31(1)(b) - whether s5.6 of Criminal Code (Cth) applies

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – interpretation of s31(1)(b) – “having regard to” – whether matters listed are determinative

OBLIGATION TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN CROWN CASE - evidence to rebut potential explanation – whether Crown obliged to lead evidence in Crown case – whether admissible if no explanation proffered for manner and form of transactions

Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth)

Criminal Code (Cth)

Hannes v Dircetor of Public Prosecutions (Cth)(No2) [2006] NSWCCA 373

Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1988) (1988) 70 SASR 502

R v Chin [1984-1985] 157 CLR 671

R v Leask (1997) 187 CLR 579

R v Leask [1999] NSWCCA 33

R v Lee (2005)2 DCLR(NSW) 360

R v Nahirni & Ors [2006] QCA 488

R v O’Driscoll [2003] NSWCCA 166

R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299

R v Taib ex parte DPP (Cth) (1999) 2 Qd R 649

COUNSEL:

T.A. Ryan for the Crown

P.J. Davis SC and Mr M Dight for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers for the Defendant

Mr Edwards has pleaded not guilty to on one count of “structuring”, an offence created by section 31(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth). That section is directed towards those who structure cash transactions so as to avoid the requirement for significant cash transactions ($10,000 or more) to be reported.

On the face of the section there are two elements to the offence created by s31(1):

(a) The person is a party to two or more non-reportable cash transactions (s31(1)(a)); and

(b) It would be reasonable to conclude that the person conducted those transactions in that manner or form for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding the reporting requirement (s31(1)(b)).

At the commencement of the trial, counsel for Mr Edwards, Mr Davis SC, asked me to rule inadmissible any evidence not probative of either: the manner and form of the transactions the subject of the charge; or any explanation made by Mr Edwards as to the manner and form in which those transactions were conducted. As Mr Edwards was not interviewed and has, as yet, given no explanation, the effect of the ruling sought was to confine the scope of…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2006] QDC 406
Case: [2006] QDC 406
Decision Date: 11 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Edwards, was charged with multiple counts of fraud and was contesting the admissibility of certain evidence in relation to the charges. The central issue was whether the evidence in question was relevant to the nature of the transactions in question, or any explanations provided by the defendant regarding those transactions.

The court had to determine whether the evidence was probative of either the manner and form of the transactions or any explanation provided by the defendant about those transactions. This involved assessing whether the evidence had a tendency to establish facts of consequence in the determination of the proceedings. The court needed to balance the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

The Supreme Court concluded that evidence that did not contribute to understanding the manner and form of the transactions, or the defendant's explanation of those transactions, was not admissible. This decision was based on the need to ensure that only evidence which is relevant to the issues in the case is considered by the jury. The court emphasised that the relevance of evidence to the transaction or the defendant's explanation was a fundamental criterion for its admissibility. Consequently, the court ruled that such evidence was not admissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

Evidence which is not probative of either:

(i) the manner and form of the transactions; or

(ii) any explanation made by the defendant as to the manner and form in which they were conducted;

is not admissible.

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 Edwards [2006] QDC 406
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN V GARY JOHN SIMON EDWARDS
FILE NO/S:	767/06
DIVISION:	Criminal Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application to exclude evidence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	11 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 December 2006
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDER:	Evidence which is not probative of either: (i) the manner and form of the transactions; or (ii) any explanation made by the defendant as to the manner and form in which they were conducted; is not admissible.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – Admissibility – evidence as to motive – ruling sought as to admissibility – ruled inadmissible MENS REA – criminal responsibility - fault element of offence – whether provided by s31(1)(b) - whether s5.6 of Criminal Code (Cth) applies STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – interpretation of s31(1)(b) – “having regard to” – whether matters listed are determinative OBLIGATION TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN CROWN CASE - evidence to rebut potential explanation – whether Crown obliged to lead evidence in Crown case – whether admissible if no explanation proffered for manner and form of transactions Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth) Hannes v Dircetor of Public Prosecutions (Cth)(No2) [2006] NSWCCA 373 Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1988) (1988) 70 SASR 502 R v Chin [1984-1985] 157 CLR 671 R v Leask (1997) 187 CLR 579 R v Leask [1999] NSWCCA 33 R v Lee (2005)2 DCLR(NSW) 360 R v Nahirni & Ors [2006] QCA 488 R v O’Driscoll [2003] NSWCCA 166 R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299 R v Taib ex parte DPP (Cth) (1999) 2 Qd R 649
COUNSEL:	T.A. Ryan for the Crown P.J. Davis SC and Mr M Dight for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers for the Defendant