R v Illingworth - [2014] QDC 229

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Illingworth [2014] QDC 229

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

v

JEAN ANNE ILLINGWORTH
(applicant)

FILE NO:

Cairns Indictment No. 162 of 2014

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial argument – s 590AA of the Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Cairns

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2014

JUDGE:

Judge O’Brien DCJA

ORDER:

1. Application is dismissed in so far as it involved paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the application.

2. Application is adjourned to a date to be fixed in respect of paragraph (f) of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENT - JOINDER OF COUNTS – commonality of facts - where counts 1 to 6 allege the falsification of student numbers being distinguishable only by the dates and the entities involved – where counts 7 and 8 allege conduct intended to conceal fraud – where counts 9 and 10 allege conduct designed to excuse the defendant of any involvement in fraudulent activity – where there is application for separate trials upon counts 1-5, 6, 7-8 and 9-10 on the indictment.

CRIMINAL LAW - INDICTMENT - MOTION TO QUASH – where count 6 is framed in accordance with s 568(3) the Criminal Code – where the offending involves the same complainant – where the offending involves the same repeated methodology – where each incident involves the alleged obtaining of a monetary payment in excess of $30,000 - where there is an application to quash count 6 of the indictment or alternatively to amend it pursuant to s 596(2) of the Code.

CRIMINAL LAW – ABUSE OF PROCESS – STAY OF INDICTMENT – whether s 16 of the Criminal Code is enlivened – where the defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of breach of bail in the Magistrates Court and was fined - where the conduct constituting the beach of bail offence was the defendant making contact with a witness by causing a letter to be delivered to him – where the Crown submits that the punishable act for the purposes of counts 9 and 10 of the indictment relates to the creation and intended use of the letter - where the applicant is seeking a permanent stay of counts 9 and 10 on the indictment.

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE - application for an order for further and better particulars on each count of the indictment.

Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193

Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467

R v Baynes [1989] 2 Qd R 431

R v Bradley [2013] QCA 163

R v Dibble ex parte Attorney- General Queensland [2014] QCA 8

R v Gordonex parte Attorney-General [1975] Qd R 301

R v Liddy (2002) SASR 19

R v Mill [2007] QCA 150

R v Navarolli [2009] QCA 49

R v S [1998] 1 Qd R 445

The Queen v Rogers unreported CA numbers 445 of 1997 and 17 of 1998 delivered 6 May 1998

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld),…

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 Illingworth

Details

AGLC: R v Illingworth [2014] QDC 229
Case: [2014] QDC 229
Decision Date: 26 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Illingworth, the defendant faced a complex indictment involving multiple counts of alleged criminal conduct. The primary dispute centred around the joinder of counts within the indictment and whether certain counts should be tried separately. Additionally, there was a motion to quash certain counts and an application for an order for further and better particulars. The court was tasked with determining the legality of the joinder of the counts, the validity of the motion to quash, and the necessity for further particulars.

The legal issues before the court involved the propriety of joining various counts in the indictment, the application to quash count 6, and the application for an order for further and better particulars. The court had to assess whether the counts shared commonality of facts sufficient to warrant joinder, whether count 6 should be quashed or amended, and whether the particulars provided were sufficient for the defendant's preparation.

The court dismissed the application regarding the joinder of counts and the quashing of count 6, holding that the commonality of facts justified the joinder and that count 6 was properly framed. The court found that the particulars provided were adequate for the defendant's preparation and did not warrant an order for further and better particulars. The court also found that the conduct in breach of bail did not enliven section 16 of the Criminal Code, leading to the dismissal of the application for a permanent stay of counts 9 and 10.

The court's orders were clear: the application was dismissed in respect of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the application. The application concerning paragraph (f) was adjourned to a date to be fixed, allowing the court to further consider the necessity for an order for further and better particulars.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application is dismissed in so far as it involved paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the application.

2. Application is adjourned to a date to be fixed in respect of paragraph (f) of the application.

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 Illingworth [2014] QDC 229
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent) v JEAN ANNE ILLINGWORTH (applicant)
FILE NO:	Cairns Indictment No. 162 of 2014
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial argument – s 590AA of the Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	District Court at Cairns
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2014
JUDGE:	Judge O’Brien DCJA
ORDER:	1. Application is dismissed in so far as it involved paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the application. 2. Application is adjourned to a date to be fixed in respect of paragraph (f) of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENT - JOINDER OF COUNTS – commonality of facts - where counts 1 to 6 allege the falsification of student numbers being distinguishable only by the dates and the entities involved – where counts 7 and 8 allege conduct intended to conceal fraud – where counts 9 and 10 allege conduct designed to excuse the defendant of any involvement in fraudulent activity – where there is application for separate trials upon counts 1-5, 6, 7-8 and 9-10 on the indictment. CRIMINAL LAW - INDICTMENT - MOTION TO QUASH – where count 6 is framed in accordance with s 568(3) the Criminal Code – where the offending involves the same complainant – where the offending involves the same repeated methodology – where each incident involves the alleged obtaining of a monetary payment in excess of $30,000 - where there is an application to quash count 6 of the indictment or alternatively to amend it pursuant to s 596(2) of the Code. CRIMINAL LAW – ABUSE OF PROCESS – STAY OF INDICTMENT – whether s 16 of the Criminal Code is enlivened – where the defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of breach of bail in the Magistrates Court and was fined - where the conduct constituting the beach of bail offence was the defendant making contact with a witness by causing a letter to be delivered to him – where the Crown submits that the punishable act for the purposes of counts 9 and 10 of the indictment relates to the creation and intended use of the letter - where the applicant is seeking a permanent stay of counts 9 and 10 on the indictment. CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE - application for an order for further and better particulars on each count of the indictment. Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 R v Baynes [1989] 2 Qd R 431 R v Bradley [2013] QCA 163 R v Dibble ex parte Attorney- General Queensland [2014] QCA 8 R v Gordonex parte Attorney-General [1975] Qd R 301 R v Liddy (2002) SASR 19 R v Mill [2007] QCA 150 R v Navarolli [2009] QCA 49 R v S [1998] 1 Qd R 445 The Queen v Rogers unreported CA numbers 445 of 1997 and 17 of 1998 delivered 6 May 1998 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld),…