R v Lewis - [1992] QCA 223

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 223
QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 189 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

TERENCE MURRAY LEWIS

(Appellant)

JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Delivered the 3rd day of August, 1992.

The appellant, for a number of years, had served as

Queensland's Commissioner of Police and was, on 5 August, 1991,
convicted by a jury on fifteen counts of official corruption. The jury considered the matter for four days before bringing in its decision. The appellant now appeals both against conviction
and sentence by his notice dated 13 August, 1991.
The notice of appeal states and particularises a number of

grounds but in the argument on the appeal against conviction
only three points were taken.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that:

(i)The conduct of counsel appearing for the Crown at the

trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
(ii)Apart from concerns about the reliability of the evidence given by the Herberts (the chief Crown witnesses), the evidence adduced at the trial was insufficient to prove any of the counts with the exception of count no. 2.
(iii)The adverse pre-trial publicity concerning the appellant had been such that a fair trial was not had.

The trial went for some eighty-nine days and the record is voluminous, running to sixteen volumes. Our appreciation of the effect of the evidence was assisted by the announcement made by counsel for the appellant that he was content to accept the evidence summary which had been produced by the Crown for the purpose of the appeal. The summary itself runs to some 142
pages.
With the exception of the second count, each of the counts on the indictment was framed under s. 121(1) of the Criminal Code dealing with corrupt conduct by persons, including public
servants, whose duties of a non-judicial kind involve the prosecution, detention or punishment of offenders. Count 2 was
framed under s. 87(1) of the Code which is also concerned with
corrupt behaviour of public servants in respect of duties not involving the administration of justice. The subsections are as
follows:
"87.Official corruption. Any person who -

(1)Being employed in the Public Service, or being the holder of any public office, and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment or office, not being a duty touching the administration of justice, corruptly asks, receives, or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of any thing already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office; or ..."
"121. Official corruption not judicial but relating to
offences. Any person who -

(1)Being a justice not acting judicially or being a person employed in the Public Service in any capacity not judicial for the prosecution or detention or punishment of offenders, corruptly asks, receives,…

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 Lewis

Details

AGLC: R v Lewis [1992] QCA 223
Case: [1992] QCA 223
Decision Date: 3/08/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lewis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Terence Murray Lewis, a former Commissioner of Police in Queensland, was convicted on fifteen counts of official corruption. The court considered three main issues: whether the conduct of the prosecution counsel led to a miscarriage of justice, whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the counts, and whether the pre-trial publicity resulted in an unfair trial. The court found that the prosecution counsel's comments, while problematic, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the trial judge's summing up effectively neutralized any potential prejudice. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the counts, despite some discrepancies between the indictment and the particulars delivered. Finally, the court held that the trial judge's handling of the pre-trial publicity issue was within his discretion and did not result in an unfair trial. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, with the court finding that the severity of the sentence was justified given the nature of the offences committed.

Orders