R v Minniecon

[1995] QCA 189

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 85 of 1995
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. Davies J.A. Moynihan S.J.A.

[R. v. Minniecon]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
WARREN PHILLIP MINNIECON

(Appellant)

FITZGERALD P.
DAVIES J.A.

MOYNIHAN S.J.A.

J udgment delivered 19/05/1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY VERDICT - making of a false claim as an official contrary to s. 91 of the Criminal Code - whether a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the accused's innocence had not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt
Counsel:	D.R. Lynch for the Appellant L.J. Clare for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Date/s of Hearing: 11/05/1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 19/05/1995

On 3 February 1995 in the District Court at Goondiwindi, the appellant was convicted of making a false claim as an official contrary to s. 91 of the Criminal Code. He has appealed against his conviction, arguing only that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because a reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence had not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

The appellant was a cultural research officer with the Department of Education and, in that capacity, was one of a number of adults who supervised an excursion by high school students to Carnarvon Gorge between 22 and 25 October 1992. On 11 September that year, the appellant had applied to the Education Department for an advance travel allowance to meet the expected costs of the trip, but, although his application was approved, he did not receive the cheque from the Department until after he returned.

In the meantime, the appellant's expenses at the Lodge where the party stayed were paid by another of the adults present with funds which had been provided to her by a student support and parent awareness group which was in turn funded by the Commonwealth Government. The appellant said that he would obtain money from the Education Department and repay the student support and parent awareness group after his return and, for that purpose, requested a separate invoice for his expenses.

After the appellant returned and received the advance travel allowance which he had earlier claimed, he banked it in his own account. Subsequently, in accordance with a Departmental requirement that travel payments in advance had subsequently to be accounted for by lodgment of an acquittal form related to expenses actually met by the person to whom the travel allowance had been paid, the appellant completed and signed such a form and lodged it on 4 November 1992. That form asserted that he had been responsible for the expenses to which the invoice related and was accompanied by the invoice which he had obtained from the Lodge. He did not inform any person in the Department of the situation or repay the student support and parent awareness group.

At his trial, the appellant gave evidence claiming that his omission to repay the group was an oversight and that, at the time he completed the acquittal form, he honestly intended to make that repayment. He related the oversight to stress which he was suffering at the time.

It was accepted by counsel for the appellant that the jury must have rejected his evidence, and no complaint was made about the judge's summing up, which effectively reduced the issue to whether or not the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not intend to repay the money when he submitted the acquittal form.

Given the circumstances which have been referred to and a conclusion, which was open to the jury, that the appellant's critical evidence was false, it could safely convict the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.