R v Navarolli

Case [2009] QCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Navarolli [2009] QCA 49

PARTIES:

R
v
NAVAROLLI, John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 185 of 2008
CA No 202 of 2008
DC No 298 of 2006
DC No 861 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2008

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Chesterman JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was convicted of obtaining credit in breach of s 269 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not inform the person who he obtained credit from that he was an undischarged bankrupt – whether appellant reasonably believed that he had done so

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where there was a joinder of multiple charges on the one indictment – whether the joinder gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE – JOINDER OF PERSONS OR COUNTS – where joinder of multiple counts on one indictment – whether trial judge adequately warned jury against propensity reasoning

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where Crown failed to obtain and tender original cheque which was subject of forgery charge – where facsimile copy was tendered in lieu – whether use of copy gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where trial judge misdirected jury on the mistake of fact test by using the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) rather than the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where proviso exists in s 668E(1A) to find that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – whether proviso applied in this case

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 269(1)(a), s 269(2), 304A
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24, s 408C(1), 488(1)(a), s 567(2), s 597A, s 668E(1A)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 3.1, s 4.1(1), s 4.1(2), s 5.1, s 5.6(1), s 5.6(2), s 6.1, s 6.2, s 9.1(1), s 9.1(2)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 116

Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437, [1952] HCA 3, considered
Allied Pastoral Holdings P/L v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1983) 44 ALR 607; [1983] 1 NSWLR 1, considered
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL), applied
Commercial Union Assurance Company of…

Continue reading R v Navarolli

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Navarolli [2009] QCA 49
Case
[2009] QCA 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Navarolli was heard by the court of appeal, where the appellant sought to overturn his conviction for obtaining credit in breach of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The appellant's primary argument was that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did not inform the person from whom he obtained credit that he was an undischarged bankrupt. Additionally, the appellant argued that he reasonably believed that he had disclosed his status. The court was also required to consider whether the joinder of multiple charges on one indictment amounted to a miscarriage of justice, whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury against propensity reasoning, whether the use of a facsimile copy of a cheque constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether the trial judge's misdirection on the mistake of fact test constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court of appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction. The court found that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not inform the person from whom he obtained credit that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The court also found that the joinder of multiple charges on one indictment did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge adequately warned the jury against propensity reasoning. The court also found that the use of a facsimile copy of the cheque did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court held that the proviso in s 668E(1A) applied, and that the trial judge's misdirection on the mistake of fact test did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The court found no basis to overturn the appellant's conviction, and accordingly dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court also found that the application for leave to appeal sentence was not warranted, and accordingly refused the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal sentence is 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.