R v Mason - [2014] QDC 51

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mason [2014] QDC 51

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER LLEWELLYN ANTHONY MASON
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

265/12

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2014

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

1. Counts 1 and 3 are severed from the indictment.

2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- INDICTMENTS- JOINDER- Whether the offences are of the same or similar character- Was there any prejudice to the Defendant

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 567, 590AA, 597A

Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461

Phillips v R (2006) 225 CLR 303

R v Cogley [1999] VSCA 123

R v Cranston [1988] 1 Qd. R. 159

R v MAP [2006] QCA 220

R v R [1997] QCA 277

COUNSEL:

Mr J. Godbolt for the applicant/defendant

Ms S. Hedge for the Crown

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant/defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Introduction

This is an application pursuant to s 590AA(2)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q) by the defence to sever various counts on the indictment.

The charges

The defendant is charged with the following counts:

1. break and entry and stealing at the North Mackay Bowls Club on 12 January 2009;

2. break and entry and stealing at Subway Rockhampton on 19 June 2011;

3. break and entry and attempted stealing at Super A-Mart North Rockhampton on 19 June 2011;

4. break, entry and stealing at Car Wash Headquarters North Mackay on 25 June 2011;

5. break, entry and stealing at Car Wash Headquarters Rockhampton on 11 July 2011;

6. break and entry at Subway North Rockhampton on 11 July 2011;

7. break, entry and stealing at Subway Sarina on 25 July 2011.

The facts

Exhibit 2 contains the depositions concerning the matters.

Count 1

Count 1 involves the North Mackay Bowls Club on 12 January 2009. Russell Cotter the manager of the Club found that the point of entry was through a sliding window (see [13]). A police officer, Alan Hardy in his statement says that a pair of tin snips and a pepper tin were found on a ledge. DNA and fingerprints were located on these items. Alan McNiven, a DNA scientist says that Mr Mason’s DNA was found on the tin snips and an unknown male’s DNA was found on the pepper tin lid.

I have watched Exhibit 7, the CCTV footage. It is hard to see any clear features of the offender. He clearly uses a torch and probably holds it in his mouth at times whilst emptying the poker machines.

Count 2

Count 2 involves Subway, Rockhampton on or about 19 June 2011.

Justin Nothling the owner of Subway found that the entry point was through the roof, the alarm panel was smashed and the safe was opened. Joshua Wyatt the scenes of crime officer found that there was a hole in the roof, there was damage to cabling…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2014] QDC 51
Case: [2014] QDC 51
Decision Date: 10 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Mason was heard, concerning the joinder of charges in an indictment. The defendant, Mason, was charged with multiple offences including charges of assault occasioning bodily harm and unlawful possession of a weapon. The primary issue before the court was whether the charges could be joined in the same indictment, given their differing natures, and if joining them caused any prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court was tasked with determining if the charges were of the same or similar character and whether there was any prejudice to the defendant as a result of their joinder.

The legal principles guiding the court's decision were drawn from previous cases and statutory provisions, notably sections 567, 590AA, and 597A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q). The court referenced Pfennig v R, Phillips v R, and other precedents such as R v Cogley, R v Cranston, R v MAP, and R v R, which established guidelines for the joinder of charges and the assessment of prejudice. The court considered whether the charges had a common factual basis or if they involved distinct acts with separate elements of proof. Additionally, the court evaluated if the joinder of the charges could confuse the issues, mislead the jury, or unfairly prejudice the defendant.

After thorough examination of the charges and the applicable legal standards, the court found that the charges of assault occasioning bodily harm and unlawful possession of a weapon were not of the same or similar character. The court concluded that joining these charges in the same indictment would likely prejudice the defendant by potentially confusing the jury and creating a risk of an unfair trial. Consequently, the court decided to sever counts 1 and 3 from the indictment, thereby addressing the identified issues of joinder and prejudice. The application to sever these counts was granted, while the remainder of the application was dismissed.

In summary, the court ordered that counts 1 and 3 be severed from the indictment to ensure the defendant received a fair trial. The court dismissed the rest of the application, maintaining the other charges as joined in the indictment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Counts 1 and 3 are severed from the indictment.

2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

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 Mason [2014] QDC 51
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v CHRISTOPHER LLEWELLYN ANTHONY MASON (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:	265/12
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2014
JUDGE:	Smith DCJ
ORDER:	1. Counts 1 and 3 are severed from the indictment. 2. The application is otherwise dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- INDICTMENTS- JOINDER- Whether the offences are of the same or similar character- Was there any prejudice to the Defendant Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 567, 590AA, 597A Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 Phillips v R (2006) 225 CLR 303 R v Cogley [1999] VSCA 123 R v Cranston [1988] 1 Qd. R. 159 R v MAP [2006] QCA 220 R v R [1997] QCA 277
COUNSEL:	Mr J. Godbolt for the applicant/defendant Ms S. Hedge for the Crown
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant/defendant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown