R v Heginbotham - [1995] QCA 56

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 056

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 472 of 1994
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. Davies J.A. McPherson J.A.

[R. v. Heginbotham]

T H E Q U E E N

RYAN KEITH HEGINBOTHAM (Appellant)

FITZGERALD P.
DAVIES J.A.

MCPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 08/03/1995

SEPARATE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT, ALL

CONCURRING AS TO THE ORDER MADE.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - stealing - breaking and entering - receiving - whether open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
Counsel:	D. Lynch for the Appellant Ms L. Clare for the Crown
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Date/s of Hearing: 28 February 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 08/03/1995

The appellant has appealed against his conviction in the

District Court at Ipswich on 18 October 1994 of an offence of

breaking, entering and stealing. The appellant's argument is

that he should have been convicted on the alternative count of

receiving, to which he pleaded guilty.

The Ipswich branch of the National Australia Bank was broken

into and entered between 6.30 and 11.30 p.m. on 8 March 1993. A

subsequent audit revealed that $12,935 had been stolen, $10,290 in a night safe wallet, and approximately $2,645 in coins of all

denominations from 2¢ to $2. The thief had entered and exited

by forcing the rear door of the bank which led into a secluded

alleyway which was closed off to the public. Premises in the vicinity, including the Ipswich Post Office, also have access to the alleyway and, on the following morning, a Post Office

employee found the night safe wallet and a screwdriver at the rear of the Post Office. The night safe wallet had been split open and the contents removed.

Some of the coins were found nearby on 11 March 1993 in plastic

money bags, one of which bore a print of the appellant's left thumb. The total recovered was only about $266, mostly coins of smaller denominations, but also about 300 50¢ coins. An Ipswich City Council employee found a number of the plastic bags of

coins in three water control pits in an alley next to the Post Office; to gain access to the alley from the street meant

scaling a wall. The remainder of the coins were discovered on

the ground in the vicinity of the water control pits.

When he was interviewed by police on 15 April 1993, the

appellant denied handling the plastic bag on which the thumb

print was found or any knowledge of the offence.

As mentioned earlier, the appellant pleaded guilty to receiving;

more specifically, to receiving a sum of money, the property of the National Australia Bank Limited, which had then lately been

stolen which he then knew had been stolen. The actual words used by the appellant when he was arraigned were, "Guilty of receiving the money found in the manhole."

It…

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 Heginbotham

Details

AGLC: R v Heginbotham [1995] QCA 56
Case: [1995] QCA 56
Decision Date: 8/03/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heginbotham arose in the context of an alleged theft and receiving stolen property by the defendant, Heginbotham. The prosecution argued that Heginbotham committed the offence of breaking and entering a building with the intent to steal and subsequently received stolen goods. The matter was heard and determined by the relevant court, which needed to address the question of whether the jury was open to finding that the accused was guilty of the offences charged, beyond reasonable doubt. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the evidence presented and the application of legal principles relating to theft and receiving stolen property.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the prosecution had successfully proven that Heginbotham broke and entered a building with the intent to steal and whether Heginbotham received stolen property with knowledge that it was stolen. The court had to consider the burden of proof required in criminal cases, particularly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and evaluate whether the evidence presented met this threshold. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the jury was justified in concluding that Heginbotham had the requisite knowledge and intent at the time of the alleged offences.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and testimonies provided during the trial. It assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence against Heginbotham. The court concluded that the prosecution had not met the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It found that there were inconsistencies and uncertainties in the evidence that left room for doubt regarding Heginbotham's intent and knowledge at the time of the alleged offences. Consequently, the court determined that the jury was not open to being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Heginbotham committed the offences of breaking and entering with intent to steal and receiving stolen property. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

In summary, the court found in favour of Heginbotham, quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the importance of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and the necessity for the prosecution to present clear and convincing evidence to satisfy this burden.

Orders