Legal Research
Cases
R v McCann

R v McCann

Case [1997] QCA 238 8 August 1997

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 238
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 511 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. McCann]

T H E Q U E E N

STEVEN JOHN McCANN

Appellant

Macrossan CJ
Davies JA
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 8 August 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Davies JA and Byrne J concurring as to the orders made, the Chief Justice dissenting.

APPEAL ALLOWED. CONVICTION QUASHED. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL

ENTERED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - s.87(1) Criminal Code - whether temporary administration officer of Corrective Services Commission was the "holder of any public office" - words and phrases "office"; "public office".
Counsel:	Mr M. Shanahan for the appellant Mr D. Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing date:	4 March 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Judgment delivered 8 August 1997

The issues to be considered in this case and relevant enactments appear in the reasons prepared by Byrne J and I shall rely upon the descriptions there in setting out my own conclusions.

Notwithstanding an attempt by the appellant's counsel to support an objection to the verdicts as being inconsistent, this argument should be rejected. The three allegedly corrupt offers were made to three different officers who each spoke of the separate occasion in which he was involved. Nothing reasonably required similar verdicts and the jury were quite free on the evidence to regard one charge as proved and the others as being situations where the appellant should receive the benefit of the doubt. The topic of inconsistency of verdicts has recently been considered by the High Court in MacKenzie v. The Queen (1996) 71 A.L.J.R. 91. Nothing in the Court's reasons would provide any support for the appellant's submissions in the circumstances of this case.

This then leads to a consideration of the guilty verdict reached on count two involving the officer, Burnett.

At the conclusion of the Crown case the trial judge was asked to rule on a submission that there was no case to answer. It was submitted that Burnett and the other two officers referred to in the indictment were not holders of any public office. It was also submitted that there was no evidence that the appellant, then a prisoner, had knowledge of Commissioner's rule 28 which applied to Burnett and other officers and by its terms required them to refrain from entering into arrangements with prisoners and receiving anything from prisoners for their personal use. The judge held that the rule was something that the jury might consider as background in the course of deciding whether the appellant had acted with a corrupt intention when he attempted to procure the officers to bring items into the prison for him. No error was involved in this. When directing the jury on the issue of corrupt intention, the judge carefully explained to them that it was the appellant's mental state that was the…

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 McCann

Details

AGLC: R v McCann [1997] QCA 238
Case: [1997] QCA 238
Decision Date: 8/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court in R v McCann heard an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for an offence under s.87(1) of the Criminal Code. The respondent, a temporary administration officer for the Corrective Services Commission, was charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent's position qualified as "the holder of any public office" for the purposes of the statute. This determination was pivotal as it influenced the applicability of the offence in question.

The court examined the statutory language to interpret the terms "office" and "public office" within the context of s.87(1). The respondent argued that a temporary administration officer was not a "holder of any public office," and thus, the offence did not apply. The court needed to ascertain whether the temporary nature of the role excluded it from the definition of a "public office" and if the respondent's duties and responsibilities were sufficient to qualify as holding a public office. This interpretation was crucial for understanding the extent of the statutory provisions and their application to temporary employees within public service roles.

In its reasoning, the court found that the temporary administration officer's role, despite its short-term nature, involved significant responsibilities and duties typically associated with public service roles. The court held that such a position could be considered as holding a "public office" for the purposes of s.87(1) of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the offence applied, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision clarified the scope of public office in the context of temporary employment within public services, reinforcing the applicability of the Criminal Code provisions to such roles.

Orders