R v Jessen - [1996] QCA 449

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 449
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 448 of 1996

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
Thomas J.
White J.

[R. v. Jessen]

THE QUEEN

HANS PETER DAVID JESSEN

(Applicant)

Fitzgerald P.
Thomas J.
White J.

Judgment delivered 19 November 1996

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

BOTH THE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ARE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	EXTENSION OF TIME - CONVICTION - extortion - precise nature of the case against the applicant unclear - whether the facts relied upon by the Crown and upon which the applicant presented his guilty plea were sufficient to support the indictment i.e. whether there was any relevant threat of detriment - s. 415(1)(b) Criminal Code.
Joseph Gill’s Case 1 Lew. 304, 168 E.R. 1049 R. v. Durham Quarter Sessions; ex parte Virgo [1952] 2 Q.B. 1 R. v. Pollock [1967] 2 Q.B. 195 R. v. Rasmussen and Spiegelass (1928) 28 S.R.N.S.W. 349 R. v. Richards [1868] 11 Cox, CC 43 R. v. The Justices at Cloncurry; ex parte Ryan [1978] Qd.R. 213 Thorne v. Motor Trade Association [1937] A.C. 797 Walton’s Case [1863] L. & C. 288
SENTENCE - insignificant criminal history, cooperated from an early stage, pleaded guilty and experienced financial difficulties at the time - extremely serious offence involving a substantial sum of money relating to the due administration of justice.
Counsel:	Mr A. Rafter for the applicant. Mr D. Bullock for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	11 November 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.
Judgment delivered 19 November 1996

The applicant has applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction of extortion between 21 and 29 February this year and for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, imprisonment for three years with a recommendation that he be eligible for consideration for parole after serving nine months. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Southport on 3 October, and was sentenced that day. The application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction, arises out of the circumstance that an analysis of the information before the District Court for the purpose of considering the application for leave to appeal against sentence left unclear the precise nature of the case against the applicant and whether, as alleged in the indictment, he “orally demanded from one Ernest Michael Goldsmith a sum of money without reasonable and probable cause with threats of detriment to be caused to one Neil Hoffman namely that [he] would provide evidence at a committal hearing implicating the said Neil Hoffman in the commission of a criminal offence if the said Ernest Michael Goldsmith did not comply with the said demand with intent thereby then to extort money from the said…

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 Jessen

Details

AGLC: R v Jessen [1996] QCA 449
Case: [1996] QCA 449
Decision Date: 19/11/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jessen came before the court with the primary issue being an application for an extension of time to appeal against a conviction for extortion. The applicant, Jessen, had pleaded guilty to extortion but now sought to challenge the conviction on the basis that the facts upon which the guilty plea was based did not sufficiently support the indictment. Specifically, Jessen questioned whether there had been a relevant threat of detriment, as required by section 415(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, to substantiate the charge.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the nature of the threat alleged in the indictment was sufficiently detailed and supported by the facts to sustain the conviction. Jessen argued that the precise nature of the case against him was unclear and that the facts presented by the Crown and upon which his guilty plea was based were insufficient to support the indictment. The court had to determine whether the elements of extortion, as defined by the relevant statutory provision, were met by the evidence presented.

The court examined the specifics of the case and the sufficiency of the facts to meet the requirements of the Criminal Code. It was necessary to assess whether there was a relevant threat of detriment, which is an essential element of the offence of extortion. The court considered the nature and content of the threats made, and whether these threats were sufficiently severe and relevant to support the conviction. Ultimately, the court found that the facts presented did meet the legal criteria for extortion, and the conviction was upheld. Jessen's application for an extension of time to appeal was denied, and the conviction remained intact.

Orders