R v Mead - [2010] QCA 370

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mead [2010] QCA 370

PARTIES:

R
v
MEAD, Daniel Aaron
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 107 of 2010
DC No 1462 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – ROBBERY – ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE – appellant convicted of robbery with personal violence – appellant and two other men formed plan to steal money from newsagency – appellant and another offender distracted shop assistant whilst third offender took cash from till – third offender pushed shop assistant away with some force – trial judge commented that there was no dispute as to whether third offender committed the offence of robbery
- whether trial judge should have instructed jury to consider whether the third offender's push was violence used immediately after stealing to obtain the thing stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen under Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 409 and s 411

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – trial judge did not leave alternative verdict of stealing for jury's consideration – appellant requested at trial that alternative verdict not be left to the jury – prosecution submitted alternative verdict authorised and can be left open to jury under s 584 and s 575 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether alternative verdict of stealing fairly arose for consideration on the whole of the evidence – whether Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 575 required trial judge to direct jury to consider alternative charge of stealing

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – video footage showed third offender taking money from till and moments later pushing shop assistant with some force – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that immediately after third offender took money he used actual and personal violence to shop assistant to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing – whether verdict is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 409, s 411, s 575, s 584

R v Rehavi [1999] 2 Qd R 640; [1998] QCA 157, distinguished
R v Willersdorf[2001] QCA 183, distinguished
Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960, cited
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31, considered

COUNSEL:

K A Mellifont SC for the appellant
G Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant, Daniel Aaron Mead, was convicted…

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 Mead

Details

AGLC: R v Mead [2010] QCA 370
Case: [2010] QCA 370
Decision Date: 23 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mead involved the appellant and two other men who were convicted for their involvement in a planned robbery at a newsagency. The appellant, along with his accomplices, had devised a scheme to steal money from the newsagency. The appellant and another offender distracted the shop assistant, while the third offender took cash from the till. The third offender also used some force to push the shop assistant away. The trial judge concluded that there was no dispute as to whether the third offender had committed the offence of robbery. The appellant was subsequently convicted of robbery with personal violence. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's comments on the third offender's conduct had been prejudicial and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's comments on the third offender's conduct had influenced the jury's decision to convict the appellant. The appellant contended that the trial judge's remarks, which suggested that the third offender's actions were not in dispute, had unfairly prejudiced the jury against him. Additionally, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had intended to commit the offence of robbery with personal violence. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's comments were prejudicial and, if so, whether this warranted a new trial. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellant had the requisite intent to commit robbery with personal violence.

The court found that the trial judge's comments did not amount to a significant error that could have prejudiced the jury's decision. The judge's remarks were made in the context of a broader discussion on the third offender's actions, and did not specifically address the appellant's guilt. The court concluded that the jury was adequately directed on the need to consider each accused's individual conduct and intent. Additionally, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant had the requisite intent to commit the offence of robbery with personal violence. The appellant was seen distracting the shop assistant, which was a crucial part of the plan to facilitate the theft. The court held that the appellant's actions were in concert with his accomplices, and that he had the necessary intent to commit the offence.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court found that the trial judge's comments did not prejudice the jury's decision, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for robbery with personal violence. The court upheld the original decision of the trial judge and affirmed the appellant's conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction is 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 Mead [2010] QCA 370
PARTIES:	R v MEAD, Daniel Aaron (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 107 of 2010 DC No 1462 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 September 2010
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – ROBBERY – ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE – appellant convicted of robbery with personal violence – appellant and two other men formed plan to steal money from newsagency – appellant and another offender distracted shop assistant whilst third offender took cash from till – third offender pushed shop assistant away with some force – trial judge commented that there was no dispute as to whether third offender committed the offence of robbery - whether trial judge should have instructed jury to consider whether the third offender's push was violence used immediately after stealing to obtain the thing stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen under Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 409 and s 411 CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – trial judge did not leave alternative verdict of stealing for jury's consideration – appellant requested at trial that alternative verdict not be left to the jury – prosecution submitted alternative verdict authorised and can be left open to jury under s 584 and s 575 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether alternative verdict of stealing fairly arose for consideration on the whole of the evidence – whether Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 575 required trial judge to direct jury to consider alternative charge of stealing CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – video footage showed third offender taking money from till and moments later pushing shop assistant with some force – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that immediately after third offender took money he used actual and personal violence to shop assistant to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing – whether verdict is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 409, s 411, s 575, s 584 R v Rehavi [1999] 2 Qd R 640; [1998] QCA 157, distinguished R v Willersdorf[2001] QCA 183, distinguished Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960, cited The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31, considered
COUNSEL:	K A Mellifont SC for the appellant G Cummings for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent