Legal Research
Cases
R v Edwards

R v Edwards

Case [2011] QCA 331 22 November 2011

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2011] QCA 331

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Annie Paivi
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 43 of 2011
DC No 1288 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

18 October 2011, 17 November 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.The appeal against convictions is dismissed.

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

3.The appeal against sentence is allowed.

4.The sentence imposed in the District Court is varied by fixing the date upon which the appellant is to be released on parole at 25 November 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of five counts of fraud – where the appellant sold horses by dishonestly making representations about their age, health, temperament and other qualities – where the appellant used a number of different names and alleged that a fictional person made the sales without her knowledge – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in refusing a no case to answer submission made on the basis that there was no ‘continuity evidence’ establishing that the horses which arrived at the complainants’ premises were the same horses loaded into the transport vehicles – where the appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable because the district was in serious drought at the time, the complainants failed to inspect the horses before they purchased them and did not ask for their money back, there was a lack of expert and photographic evidence to prove the condition of the horses, there were inherent risks of injury and ill health when transporting horses, and there were other inconsistencies in the evidence – where there was nonetheless a solid body of evidence supporting the prosecution case – whether the trial judge erred in refusing the no case to answer submission – whether the verdicts were unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where a number of the complainants gave evidence that the appellant’s voice ‘seemed similar’ to the voice of the fictional character created by the appellant – where one witness gave evidence that the appellant and the fictional character were ‘the same person’ and had ‘the same voice’ – where the trial judge warned the jury not simply to take the word of an unqualified witness that the speaker on the telephone was the same on two occasions – whether the evidence was admissible – whether there was a miscarriage of justice notwithstanding the trial judge’s directions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY…

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 [2011] QCA 331
Case: [2011] QCA 331
Decision Date: 22 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Edwards, appealed against her convictions and sentence on various grounds. She was convicted of five counts of fraud by the District Court, after she had dishonestly sold horses by making false representations about their age, health, temperament, and other qualities. Edwards used several different names and claimed a fictional person made the sales without her knowledge. She argued that the trial judge erred in refusing her no case to answer submission, which was based on the absence of continuity evidence connecting the horses transported to the horses sold. Edwards also argued that the verdicts were unreasonable because of the drought, the complainants' failure to inspect the horses, a lack of expert evidence, and other inconsistencies. The court had to decide whether the trial judge erred in refusing the no case to answer submission and whether the verdicts were unreasonable.

The court found that there was a solid body of evidence supporting the prosecution case. The trial judge had correctly refused the no case to answer submission. The jury was not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the horses transported were the same as those sold. The evidence showed that the appellant had made false representations to induce the sale of the horses. The court found that the trial judge had given proper directions to the jury regarding the voice identification evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as the jury had been properly directed and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts.

In relation to the sentence, the court found that the compensation orders ought to be set aside due to the real prospect of the appellant defaulting on payment. The court also found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, given the consequences for the appellant’s daughters. The court allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the sentence by fixing the appellant’s parole release date at 25 November 2011.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal against convictions is dismissed.
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
3. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
4. The sentence imposed in the District Court is varied by fixing the date upon which the appellant is to be released on parole at 25 November 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal against convictions is dismissed.

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

3.The appeal against sentence is allowed.

4.The sentence imposed in the District Court is varied by fixing the date upon which the appellant is to be released on parole at 25 November 2011.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Edwards [2011] QCA 331

Most Recent Citation

R v Barnes [2018] QCA 93

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

R v Brisbane Auto Recycling Pty Ltd & Ors
[2020] QDC 113 Para 1

…basis for imposing a non-custodial sentence unless the hardship is of an exceptional character.[55] [55] R v ABE [2019] QCA 83 at [39]; R v Edwards [2011] QCA 331 at [69].…
R v Hannan; Ex parte
[2018] QCA 201 Para 14

…and stress problems. Fraser JA held that such circumstances came within the principles in Chong , warranting an adjustment of the sentence.[32] [31][2011] QCA 331. [32] Edwards at [70]; de Jersey CJ and White JA concurring.…
R v Barnes
[2018] QCA 93

…iples. One of these is that it is only in exceptional cases that the effect of imprisonment upon family members will be given any weight: R v Edwards [2011] QCA 331. In an earlier case, R v MP [2004] QCA 170, Justice Chesterman said:…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Tilley
[2019] SASCFC 28

…It is true that the hardship to an offender’s children cannot be allowed to overwhelm all other considerations in sentencing: See R v Tilley (1991) 53 A Crim R 1 at 3. However, as the appellant conceded in this case, the effect on a family is not irrelevant. As Cooper J observed in R v Tilley at p6: ‘The public inte…
R v McConachy
[2011] QCA 183 Para 1

…d by Atkinson J, with whom Keane JA and I agreed, in R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) :[10] [10][2008] QCA 22 at [29] - [34], applied in R v McConachy [2011] QCA 183 at p 5.…
R v Stewart
[2010] SASCFC 72

…nt of in the exercise of the sentencing discretion but only in certain circumstances. It is then one of many factors to be taken into account. In R v Stewart (1994) 72 A Crim R 17 at 21, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia held: ‘Generally the hardship caused to an offender’s children is not a circumsta…
R v Butler
[2009] QCA 111

…A 53, cited R v Butler [2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111, cited R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 22, applied R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, applied R v Ratten [1971] VR 87; [1971] VicRp 10, cited COUNSEL: The appellant/applicant appeared…
R v. Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2008] QCA 22 Para 1

…of the sentence on an offender’s children were discussed by Atkinson J, with whom Keane JA and I agreed, in R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) :[10] [10][2008] QCA 22 at [29] - [34], applied in R v McConachy [2011] QCA 183 at p 5.…
R v D'Arrigo; ex parte
[2004] QCA 399

…rts is to give consideration, when appropriate, to the effect of a sentence on an offender’s young children. In R v D’Arrigo ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 399, the court was considering a case in which the only reason for suspending a term of imprisonment was the respondent’s position as sole carer of his young…
R v MP
[2004] QCA 170

…ponderance of authority is to the effect that this consideration may be brought to account only in exceptional or extreme circumstances. See R v MP [2004] QCA 170; R v Boyle (1987) 34 A Crim R 202; Arnold v Trenerry (1997) 118 NTR 1; and R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510.’…
MFA v The Queen
[2002] HCA 53

…plied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Butler [2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111, cited R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 22, applied R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, applied R v Ratten [1971] VR 87; [1971] VicRp…
Gilbert v The Queen
[2000] HCA 15

…d Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Butler [2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111, cited R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 22, applied R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472…
R v Ferrari
[1997] QCA 73

…2, applied R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, applied R v Ratten [1971] VR 87; [1971] VicRp 10, cited COUNSEL: The appellant/applicant appeared on her own behalf G Cummings for the respondent SOLICITORS: The appellant/applicant appeared on her own…
R v Maniadis
[1996] QCA 242 Para 1

…rm the “opinion that some other sentence, whether more or less severe, is warranted in law and should have been passed”.[9] [8][1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242. [9]See Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(3).…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63

…applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Butler [2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111, cited R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 22, applied R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1…
Doney v The Queen
[1990] HCA 51

…ard Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51, considered Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Butler [2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111, cited R v Chong; ex pa…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention

CITATION:	R v Edwards [2011] QCA 331
PARTIES:	R v EDWARDS, Annie Paivi (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 43 of 2011 DC No 1288 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	18 October 2011, 17 November 2011
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.The appeal against convictions is dismissed. 2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. 3.The appeal against sentence is allowed. 4.The sentence imposed in the District Court is varied by fixing the date upon which the appellant is to be released on parole at 25 November 2011.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of five counts of fraud – where the appellant sold horses by dishonestly making representations about their age, health, temperament and other qualities – where the appellant used a number of different names and alleged that a fictional person made the sales without her knowledge – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in refusing a no case to answer submission made on the basis that there was no ‘continuity evidence’ establishing that the horses which arrived at the complainants’ premises were the same horses loaded into the transport vehicles – where the appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable because the district was in serious drought at the time, the complainants failed to inspect the horses before they purchased them and did not ask for their money back, there was a lack of expert and photographic evidence to prove the condition of the horses, there were inherent risks of injury and ill health when transporting horses, and there were other inconsistencies in the evidence – where there was nonetheless a solid body of evidence supporting the prosecution case – whether the trial judge erred in refusing the no case to answer submission – whether the verdicts were unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where a number of the complainants gave evidence that the appellant’s voice ‘seemed similar’ to the voice of the fictional character created by the appellant – where one witness gave evidence that the appellant and the fictional character were ‘the same person’ and had ‘the same voice’ – where the trial judge warned the jury not simply to take the word of an unqualified witness that the speaker on the telephone was the same on two occasions – whether the evidence was admissible – whether there was a miscarriage of justice notwithstanding the trial judge’s directions CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY…