R v Fairman

[1996] QCA 201

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 201

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS J

CA No 103 of 1996

THE QUEEN

v.

TABITHA CLARE FAIRMAN  Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/05/96

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  Lilli Elizabeth Domel, a 70-year-old woman, had been shopping at Woodridge Plaza Shopping Centre on the morning of 28 August 1995.  About 1.50 p.m. on that day she was walking from the shopping centre to her car which was parked in the shopping centre car park.  That part of the car park over which she walked had a flat bitumen surface.

Notwithstanding her age, Mrs Domel was, in her own words, very steady on her feet.  She heard the noise of one or two persons running towards her from behind and then saw two girls.  The first, who was the appellant, ran past her on her left side, the other, Amanda Jane Martin, also ran past her on that side at the same time grabbing her handbag.

Mrs Domel was propelled to the ground in a way she cannot now recall.  However it is a reasonable inference that either one or other of the girls pushed or tripped her or that the grabbing of her handbag by Martin caused her to fall.  Because she did not release her handbag, she was dragged for a short distance.  At some stage she commenced to scream.  Eventually Martin released her grip and ran off.

Mrs Domel's recollection is that at that stage the appellant was already running off.  The other witnesses to part of this incident were Anthony Llewellyn and Alan Tacey.  When Mr Llewellyn's attention was attracted by Mrs Domel's scream, both girls were apparently stationary, close to Mrs Domel.  He saw Martin release her grip on the handbag and both girls started running away.

Immediately prior to their running away Mr Llewellyn thought that the appellant was about five metres from Mrs Domel.  It may also be inferred from Mr Tacey's evidence that when he first saw the two girls they were stationary close to Mrs Domel and that he saw them both turn and run away.  Tacey gave chase and apprehended the girls by grabbing hold of the appellant.  Both abused him for stopping them.

The appellant submits through Mr Rafter, her counsel, that her conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory; that the evidence went no further than to establish mere presence of the appellant at the scene and that therefore she should not have been found guilty.  It was further submitted that there was no evidence of a common plan to rob Mrs Domel.

From the evidence to which I have referred, the learned trial Judge, in my view, was entitled to infer that the appellant and Martin, when they commenced to run as they plainly both did so that they passed close to Mrs Domel, intended to rob her by taking her bag.  No other explanation was proffered by the appellant as to why she would have run past and so close to Mrs Domel and no other reasonable inference from her conduct is, in the absence of that explanation, open.

That inference is strengthened by the fact that when Martin stopped to attempt to arrest the bag from Mrs Domel's grip, the appellant stopped also, and that they turned and ran off together.  That they are together in this enterprise is supported, though less clearly so, by their joint abuse of
Mr Tacey when apprehended and that they were returned by the police later to the same address.

In my view it was open to the learned trial Judge to conclude that the appellant was a party to the offence of attempted robbery with violence and I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

PINCUS JA:  I agree

WILLIAMS J:  I agree.

-----