R v Griffiths - [1994] QCA 455

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 455

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 146 of 1994

Brisbane

[R. v. Griffiths]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
JOHN HENRY GRIFFITHS

(Appellant)

_______________________________________________________________

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
Williams J.

_______________________________________________________________
Judgment delivered 02/11/94

Joint reasons for judgment of the President and Williams J.; Davies J.A. separately. All concurring as to the orders to be made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED
________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - appellant convicted of offences of obtaining property by wilfully false promises, false pretences and misappropriation - appellant controlled company operating retirement village scheme - approved prospectus given to prospective lessees provided that moneys received from them was payable to, and would be deposited in, a solicitor's trust account - moneys in fact deposited into account controlled by appellant and his wife - whether evidence of transactions other than those directly involved in the offences charged was admissible - whether dishonest intent could be inferred from course of conduct - whether admissible evidence should have been rejected as a matter of discretion

CRIMINAL LAW - CONVICTION - MISDIRECTION - whether trial judge erred in telling jury that agreement between the appellant and mortgagee was irrelevant - relevance to issue of dishonest intent - whether misstatement of evidence by trial judge -whether miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - offences motivated by financial difficulties - no prior convictions - cynical and deliberate breaches of trust - no loss suffered by intending lessees - deterrence
- whether sentence manifestly excessive

Counsel:	Mr K. Fleming QC for the appellant Mr J. Hunter for the respondent
Solicitors:	Witheriff Nyst for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Date of Hearing:	3 August 1994

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FITZGERALD P. AND WILLIAMS J.

Judgment delivered 02/11/1994

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Davies J.A.

The material period is between April 1991 and January 1992. On any view of the matter, during that period the appellant received sums of money from lessees or prospective lessees which were required to be paid into a trust account and retained there until the material leases had been endorsed with the mortgagee's consent and lodged for registration. Further, the appellant had represented and promised to lessees, including the complainants or their solicitors, that the money would be dealt with in that manner. That was not what occurred. No money was paid to the mortgagee, whose consent was not endorsed on any leases, and no leases were lodged for registration. On the other hand, the appellant withdrew money, which was in an account, not being a trust account, which he controlled, and used it for his, or his private company's, purposes.

The appellant's first complaint was that the evidence of what occurred in the material period was not confined to the transactions directly involving the complainants. That would have been impossible…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [1994] QCA 455
Case: [1994] QCA 455
Decision Date: 2/11/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Griffiths, was convicted of various offences involving the misappropriation of funds obtained through false pretences and false promises in relation to a retirement village scheme he controlled. The funds were collected through a prospectus that stated the moneys would be held in a solicitor's trust account, but in reality, they were deposited into an account controlled by Griffiths and his wife. The appeal focused on the admissibility of evidence regarding other transactions and whether the dishonest intent could be inferred from the course of conduct. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the evidence should have been excluded by the trial judge as a matter of discretion.

The legal issues before the court included whether evidence of transactions outside the charged offences was admissible and whether dishonest intent could be inferred from Griffiths' overall conduct. The court also needed to determine if the trial judge had erred in considering an agreement between Griffiths and a mortgagee irrelevant to the issue of dishonest intent and whether there was a misstatement of evidence by the trial judge that led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the evidence of other transactions was admissible as it provided a context to understand Griffiths' dishonest intent. The court held that the trial judge did not err in considering the agreement irrelevant and dismissed the claim of misstatement of evidence. However, the court noted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive considering the absence of prior convictions, the financial motivations behind the offences, and the lack of loss to the intending lessees. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the sentence was quashed, and the case was remitted for resentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was quashed and the case was remitted for resentencing. The court's decision emphasized the need to balance the context of the transactions with the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders