R v Illingworth - [2000] WASCA 410

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R -v- ILLINGWORTH [2000] WASCA 410

CORAM: KENNEDY J
MURRAY J
PARKER J

HEARD: 12 JUNE 2000

DELIVERED : 20 DECEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CCA 44 of 2000

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
RODNEY GRANT ILLINGWORTH
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Receiving stolen property - Whether Crown required to prove that accused intended to appropriate property to his own use or to the use of someone other than the true owner - Recent possession - Acquittal by direction - Appeal by Crown - Sufficient evidence to go to jury

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 414

Result:

Appeal allowed
Judgment of acquittal set aside
New trial ordered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent: Mr P J Singleton QC & Mr W B Harris

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Mr W B Harris

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bruce v The Queen (1987) 61 ALJR 603
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
R v Matthews [1950] 1 All ER 137
R v Trainer (1906) 4 CLR 126
R v Wanganeen (1988) 50 SASR 433

Case(s) also cited:

Kobeissi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 44
Nichols v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950479; 13 September 1995
R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321
R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 221
Scott v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990004; 15 January 1999
Waterhouse v Pas, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980495; 1 September 1998

KENNEDY J: On 21 February 2000, the respondent was presented in the District Court on an indictment alleging that, on a date unknown between 1 November 1997 and 28 February 1998, at Broome, he received a geological fossilised footprint, namely one human footprint, the property of the State of Western Australia, which had then lately been stolen, then well knowing the same to have been so stolen. The respondent entered a plea of not guilty.
The evidence adduced for the Crown was relatively brief and the facts upon which the learned trial Judge had to base his decision may be shortly summarised.
Mr G G Travelstead did not give oral evidence; but, by consent, his statement was read to the jury. In April 1996, Mr Travelstead had commenced employment as managing director of City Properties Ltd, of which Lord McAlpine was chairman. Due to Lord McAlpine's interest in the collection of artefacts, Mr Travelstead became involved in managing his collection. Early in January 1998, he was contacted by the respondent, who was a former business associate of Mr Travelstead, but who was then the manager of Roebuck Plains Cattle Station. The respondent told him that he knew of some interesting artefacts that Lord McAlpine might be interested in, and inquired whether he could help or advise what could be done with them. The respondent…

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 [2000] WASCA 410
Case: [2000] WASCA 410
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Crown against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales, which acquitted the respondent, Illingworth, of a charge of receiving stolen property. The nature of the dispute was the interpretation and application of the requirement that the Crown must prove the accused's intention to appropriate property for their own use or the use of someone other than the true owner, when the accused had recently possessed stolen goods. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which exercised its appellate jurisdiction.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Crown was required to prove that the accused intended to appropriate the property to their own use or to the use of someone other than the true owner, when the accused had recently possessed stolen goods. The court considered whether the Crown's failure to prove this intention constituted a fatal defect in the prosecution's case. The court also examined whether the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to consider the issue of intent.

The court found that, while the Crown must prove the accused's intention to appropriate the property, this requirement did not negate the relevance of recent possession as evidence of the accused's involvement in the offence. The court held that the Crown's failure to prove the accused's intention did not automatically lead to an acquittal, as the jury could still consider whether the accused had recently possessed the stolen property. In this case, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the accused had recently possessed the stolen property and, therefore, the acquittal by direction was not justified. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted to the District Court for a new trial. The court did not provide any specific directions regarding the conduct of the new trial, leaving that to the discretion of the trial judge.

Orders