R v Jonasson - [1996] QCA 442

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 442
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 312 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Jonasson]

THE QUEEN

MARK JAMES JONASSON

Appellant

Macrossan C.J.
Davies J.A.
Cullinane J.

Judgment delivered 12 November 1996

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - Appeal against conviction - burglary - unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict - inconsistent evidence - application to adjourn owing to absence of witness - refusal to order voire dire to determine whether witness hostile within the discretion of the trial Judge - direction as to dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence of a witness "close to the periphery of the crime" - direction under s.632 Criminal Code (Qld).
Counsel:	Mrs. D. Richards for the appellant Mrs. L. Clare for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	11 October 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 12 November 1996

The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 10 July 1996 of burglary on 8 January 1996 at Wellington Point. There is no doubt that a burglary was committed at the house of Alan Reynolds and about 3.00 a.m. in that area on the date charged. The question in the trial was whether the appellant was the offender. He appeals against this conviction on four grounds; that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, that the learned trial Judge erred in law and in the exercise of his discretion in refusing an application for adjournment on the first day of trial, that he erred in law and in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to allow a voire dire to establish whether the witness Rowe was not desirous of telling the truth and that he erred in law and in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to direct the jury that it would be dangerous in the circumstances to act on the uncorroborated testimony of a witness Matthews. The particulars of the unsafe and unsatisfactory ground were that the Crown case relied on the evidence of Matthews, that on the objective evidence and on his admissions he was at or near the scene of the offence, that when questioned by police Matthews named the appellant as being present at the time of the offence, that there was no evidence to corroborate Matthews and that Matthews gave two inconsistent statements to police and gave evidence at the trial inconsistent with those statements. There was no dispute that these particulars were true. It is also true that the Crown case depended on Matthew's evidence; and the question, on the unsafe and unsatisfactory ground, is whether that evidence was so unreliable that no jury could have accepted sufficient of it to be satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Matthews said in evidence that, on the night in question he drove the appellant in his car to a service station to get bait and petrol and then to Wellington Point and…

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 Jonasson

Details

AGLC: R v Jonasson [1996] QCA 442
Case: [1996] QCA 442
Decision Date: 12/11/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jonasson, appealed against his conviction for burglary, arguing that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistent evidence. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland. Jonasson contended that the trial judge should have adjourned the trial due to the absence of a key witness and should have conducted a voire dire to determine if the witness was hostile. He also claimed that the trial judge's direction regarding the dangers of relying on uncorroborated evidence from a peripheral witness was inadequate.

The court examined whether the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the trial and conduct a voire dire was within their discretion and whether the direction about uncorroborated evidence was appropriate. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision not to adjourn was reasonable given the circumstances, and that the direction provided to the jury was sufficient. The court found that the evidence, while inconsistent, was enough to support the jury's verdict.

The appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds for overturning the conviction. The trial judge's decisions and directions were upheld as being within their discretion and appropriate under the circumstances. The court confirmed that the evidence, despite its inconsistencies, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt.

Orders