R v Mujunen - [1993] QCA 81

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 081

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 285 of 1992

Brisbane
[R. v. Mujunen]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N

LAURI JUHANI MUJUNEN
(Appellant)
The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice McPherson

Judgment delivered 22/03/93
Reasons for judgment by

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ON COUNT 2 ALLOWED; CONVICTION AND VERDICT ON THAT COUNT SET ASIDE; JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ENTERED IN RELATION TO IT. OTHERWISE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS DISMISSED, AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW - Stealing - Automatic teller

machine - Criminal Code s.391.

Counsel: P. Rutledge for the Crown, instructed

by the Director of Prosecutions
W. McMillan for the appellant, instructed by the Legal Aid Office

Hearing Date: 5 February 1993
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 281 of 1992

Brisbane

[R. v. Mujunen]

T H E Q U E E N

Respondent

- and -

LAURI JUHANI MUJUNEN

Appellant

The President
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Davies

Judgment delivered 22/03/93

Separate reasons for judgment by the President, McPherson JA. and Davies JA.

BY MAJORITY, APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ON COUNT 2 ALLOWED. CONVICTION AND VERDICT ON THAT COUNT SET ASIDE AND JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ENTERED IN RELATION TO IT. OTHERWISE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	STEALING - Consent of victim - customer deposits forged cheque then withdraws money from automatic bank teller machine and over counter - whether consent of bank to taking - Criminal Code (Qld.) s.391.
Counsel:	Mr W. McMillan for the appellant Mr P. Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date(s):	05/02/93

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 285 of 1992

Brisbane
Before The President

Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Davies

[R. v. Mujunen]

T H E Q U E E N

Respondent

- and -

LAURI JUHANI MUJUNEN

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE PRESIDENT

J	udgment delivered 22/03/93

On 25 September 1992, Lauri Juhani Mujunen was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on one charge of uttering a false document and three charges of stealing. On the same day he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months on all four charges, the sentences to be served concurrently, admitted to probation for two years upon the completion of the sentences and ordered to make restitution to Westpac Banking Corporation in the sum of $1,300.00 within 18 months and, in default, sentenced to imprisonment for three months. Mujunen appealed against his convictions and applied for leave to appeal against sentence. However, when the matter came on for hearing, the appeal against the conviction on the count of uttering and the application for leave to appeal against all sentences were abandoned.

Further, the appeal in respect of the three charges of stealing was expressly limited. The notice of appeal against conviction set out the following grounds in relation to…

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 Mujunen

Details

AGLC: R v Mujunen [1993] QCA 81
Case: [1993] QCA 81
Decision Date: 22/03/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of R v Mujunen involved an appeal against a conviction by Lauri Juhami Mujunen. The dispute pertained to charges of stealing, specifically involving an automatic teller machine (ATM). The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 5 February 1993. The appellant was represented by W. McMillan, instructed by the Legal Aid Office, while the Crown was represented by P. Rutledge, instructed by the Director of Prosecutions. The case was decided by the President, McPherson JA, and Davies JA, with separate reasons for judgment provided by each judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant had committed the crime of stealing as defined under the Criminal Code s.391. The court needed to determine if the act of withdrawing money from an ATM without the owner's consent constituted stealing. Additionally, the court considered whether the evidence was adequate to prove that the appellant had the requisite intent to permanently deprive the owner of the money.

The majority of the court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary intent to permanently deprive the owner of the money. The court reasoned that while the act of withdrawing money from an ATM without permission might be considered dishonest, it did not necessarily indicate an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the money. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction on Count 2 was allowed. The conviction and verdict on that count were set aside, and a judgment of acquittal was entered in relation to it. The appeal against the other counts was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders