R v Garwood - [2001] QCA 148

[2001] QCA 148

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
HOLMES J

CA No 322 of 2000

THE QUEEN

DAMIAN RANDAL GARWOOD Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/04/2001

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: In 1998, the Wambo Shire Council was the owner of a Hino crane truck. On the evening of 1 April 1998 it was parked in the Council's yard with a bobcat loaded on its tray. The works foreman saw it there when he left to go home at about 6.45 p.m. The following morning when the Council employees arrived at work at about 6.30, the truck and bobcat were gone. A shed in the yard had been smashed and a section of the surrounding fence was broken. There were tyre tracks leading off onto the Jandowie Road. The truck and bobcat were found at the side of the Malakoff- Pirrinuin Road some kilometres away. The ignition was damaged and it had been hot-wired to start it. It had first been seen there by the foreman on the morning of 2 April on his way to work at the Council yard, where he arrived at about 6.30 a.m.

Meanwhile, a male person turned up at a farm at Pirrinuin at about 6.45 a.m. on the same morning and spoke to the farmer there who was a Mr Huston. The person in question was, it was admitted at the trial, the appellant. He was bare foot, his feet were muddy, he was dressed only in shorts and had been hugging a feed bag around him to keep him warm. He said he had spent the night in Mr Huston's piggery about half a mile away, having walked a long distance through a field of unheaded sorghum. The account the appellant gave Mr Huston was that, during the night, he and a mate had been driving a truck to Charleville to collect some furniture. The police had stopped them and the appellant had immediately decamped and eventually ended up at the piggery.
He asked if he could use Mr Huston's telephone. He made two calls. One was to the mobile telephone number of his mate who was, by then he said, on his way back to Brisbane. He asked him to come back in a Fairlane vehicle, which he owned, to pick him up at the KFC, which I take to be Kentucky Fried Chicken, in Dalby. The other call was to a woman who, Mr Huston supposed, was the appellant's wife. After making these calls, he prevailed on Mr Huston to drive him back to Dalby.

The appellant was later interviewed by police from Dalby.
On 29 May 1998 he told them a story that was very different from the version given to Mr Huston. He said he had received a call from a friend known as "Turtle" who had asked him to come up to Dalby and pick him up in a hurry. He didn't know Turtle's other names, although he had been a friend of his for 10 or 12…

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 Garwood

Details

AGLC: R v Garwood [2001] QCA 148
Case: [2001] QCA 148
Decision Date: 19 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Damian Randal Garwood, was convicted of unlawful use of a vehicle and wilful damage to property. The Wambo Shire Council's Hino crane truck was stolen from their yard, and Garwood was found near the scene with muddy feet and dressed only in shorts. He provided conflicting accounts of his whereabouts and involvement in the theft, including fabricating a story about being stopped by police and subsequently abandoning the truck. The prosecution's case was circumstantial but strong, relying on the evidence of the stolen truck, Garwood's presence near the scene, and his inconsistent accounts. The jury found Garwood guilty based on the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt and whether there was any reasonable hypothesis consistent with Garwood's innocence. The court had to assess the credibility of the prosecution's case and determine if the jury's conclusion was supported by the evidence. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether Garwood's various lies and false alibis could be reasonably explained by any hypothesis other than his guilt.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. The inconsistencies in Garwood's accounts, his presence near the scene of the crime, and the lack of any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence led the court to conclude that the jury's decision was justified. The court found that Garwood's various lies and attempts to fabricate an alibi were indicative of his guilt, and there was no credible evidence suggesting any other plausible reason for his presence at the location where the truck was found. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, upholding the jury's decision and Garwood's convictions for unlawful use of a vehicle and wilful damage to property.

Orders