R v Forrest - [2003] QCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Forrest [2003] QCA 112

PARTIES:

R
v
FORREST, Steven Leslie

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 442 of 2002

DC No 420 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where appellant convicted for unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing and fraud - where appellant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment suspended after 4 months with an operational period of 3 years - where sentence to be served cumulative on the appellant’s current term of imprisonment - whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where identification evidence of witnesses conflict - whether learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury on the issue of identification - whether the trial judge failed to isolate and identify matters of significance

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered
R v Cleary [1996] QCA 359; CA No 293 of 1996, 12 September 1996, considered
R v Dozsa [2000] QCA 10; CA No 334 of 1999, 4 February 2000, considered

R v Quinn [1996] QCA 515; CA No 422 of 1996, 13
December 1996, considered
R v Tran [2000] 2 Qd R 430, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant

D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons for judgement of Philippides J and with the orders proposed.

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Philippides J for sustaining the conviction in this case, but with the qualification that I doubt if a Domican direction was really called for here. To my mind, the circumstances were such that it was the only reasonable inference that fraudulent appropriation of the vehicle could not have taken place without the active participation of the appellant at some point in the transaction.

The buyers saw an advertisement in the daily paper offering the vehicle for sale. It gave a contact telephone number by means of which they obtained the address of the house in suburban Townsville where the sale took place and delivery was taken of the vehicle. The house was leased to the appellant who lived there with his wife. The vehicle was parked in a garage under the house and he was left in possession of it when the house was let. Instead of leaving it where it was, he took it out of the garage and moved it into the front yard. After the lessor’s daughter noticed…

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 Forrest

Details

AGLC: R v Forrest [2003] QCA 112
Case: [2003] QCA 112
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing, and fraud. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant sought to appeal against both their conviction and sentence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury on the issue of identification and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The identification evidence provided by the witnesses conflicted, and the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to isolate and identify matters of significance in his directions to the jury. The court considered the evidence and arguments presented and found that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Forrest [2003] QCA 112
PARTIES:	R v FORREST, Steven Leslie (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 442 of 2002 DC No 420 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where appellant convicted for unlawful use of a motor vehicle, stealing and fraud - where appellant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment suspended after 4 months with an operational period of 3 years - where sentence to be served cumulative on the appellant’s current term of imprisonment - whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where identification evidence of witnesses conflict - whether learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury on the issue of identification - whether the trial judge failed to isolate and identify matters of significance Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered R v Cleary [1996] QCA 359; CA No 293 of 1996, 12 September 1996, considered R v Dozsa [2000] QCA 10; CA No 334 of 1999, 4 February 2000, considered R v Quinn [1996] QCA 515; CA No 422 of 1996, 13 December 1996, considered R v Tran [2000] 2 Qd R 430, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent