R v Mondon - [2002] QCA 89

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mondon [2002] QCA 89

PARTIES:

R
v
MONDON, Leonard Francis
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 226 of 2001
DC No 15 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Ambrose J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – AFFIDAVITS AND STATUTORY DECLARATIONS – STATUTORY DECLARATIONS - where appellant signed a declaration under the Oaths Act 1867-1988 that he had lost a .22 calibre rifle – where police later found matching .22 calibre rifle in appellant's possession - where appellant convicted under s 194 Criminal Code of the offence of making a false declaration – where appellant gave evidence declaration was not made in the presence of a witness

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WHAT CONSTITUTES CORROBORATION – IN GENERAL - OTHER MATTERS

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE CORROBORATION – DIRECTION OF JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF AMOUNTING TO CORROBORATION - where s 195 Criminal Code provides that a person cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness – where the testimony of witnesses as to the falsity of the statement or declaration is what must be corroborated under s 194 Criminal Code – where prosecution sought to establish the falsity of the declaration not through the testimony of a witness but through the appellant’s possession of the gun - where s 195 Criminal Code does not apply - whether learned trial judge erred in finding that there was evidence which was sufficient to constitute corroboration – whether the learned trial judge erred by not giving appropriate directions in respect of corroboration

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 194, s 195
Oaths Act 1867-1988 (Qld)

R v Linehan [1921] VLR 582, considered
R v O’Connor [1980] CrimLRev 43, considered

R v Sumner [1935] VLR 197, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
P Kelly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: The appellant was convicted after a one day trial of the offence of making a false declaration under s 194 Criminal Code. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment cumulative upon a sentence already being served. He has appealed against that conviction and sentence although in his oral and written submissions he now indicates that he no longer pursues his appeal against sentence.

On 8 December 1999 police officer Long spoke to the appellant about surrendering a firearm and a weapons licence in respect of a .22 calibre rifle. The appellant returned to the police station later that day and handed police officer Long a statutory declaration in the following terms:

"I, L F M Mondon of Beach Road, Sarina, in the State of Queensland do solemnly and sincerely…

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 Mondon

Details

AGLC: R v Mondon [2002] QCA 89
Case: [2002] QCA 89
Decision Date: 21 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mondon, the appellant was convicted of making a false declaration under section 194 of the Criminal Code. The appellant had signed a statutory declaration under the Oaths Act 1867-1988 stating he had lost a .22 calibre rifle. Later, the police found a matching.22 calibre rifle in the appellant's possession. The appellant argued that the evidence of the police finding the rifle was not sufficient corroboration of the uncorroborated testimony of the witness who attested the statutory declaration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the possession of the rifle by the police constituted sufficient corroboration of the witness's testimony, and if the trial judge appropriately directed the jury regarding the need for corroboration. Under section 195 of the Criminal Code, a conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, but the court needed to determine what constituted adequate corroboration in this context.

The court held that the possession of the.22 calibre rifle by the police was sufficient to corroborate the witness's testimony, as it provided independent evidence of the appellant's false declaration. The court found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to constitute corroboration. Additionally, the court determined that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the need for corroboration, ensuring that the jury understood the requirements of the law.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 Mondon [2002] QCA 89
PARTIES:	R v MONDON, Leonard Francis (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 226 of 2001 DC No 15 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Ambrose J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – AFFIDAVITS AND STATUTORY DECLARATIONS – STATUTORY DECLARATIONS - where appellant signed a declaration under the Oaths Act 1867-1988 that he had lost a .22 calibre rifle – where police later found matching .22 calibre rifle in appellant's possession - where appellant convicted under s 194 Criminal Code of the offence of making a false declaration – where appellant gave evidence declaration was not made in the presence of a witness CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WHAT CONSTITUTES CORROBORATION – IN GENERAL - OTHER MATTERS CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE CORROBORATION – DIRECTION OF JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF AMOUNTING TO CORROBORATION - where s 195 Criminal Code provides that a person cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness – where the testimony of witnesses as to the falsity of the statement or declaration is what must be corroborated under s 194 Criminal Code – where prosecution sought to establish the falsity of the declaration not through the testimony of a witness but through the appellant’s possession of the gun - where s 195 Criminal Code does not apply - whether learned trial judge erred in finding that there was evidence which was sufficient to constitute corroboration – whether the learned trial judge erred by not giving appropriate directions in respect of corroboration Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 194, s 195 Oaths Act 1867-1988 (Qld) R v Linehan [1921] VLR 582, considered R v O’Connor [1980] CrimLRev 43, considered R v Sumner [1935] VLR 197, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf P Kelly for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent