R v Nuttall - [2010] QCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Nuttall [2010] QCA 64

PARTIES:

R
v
NUTTALL, Gordon Richard
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 193 of 2009
DC No 3445 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Holmes and Fraser JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PRESENTATION OF CROWN CASE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of one count of receiving a secret commission as an agent in the amount of $60,000 – where Crown led evidence that the payment was accounted for in an unusual way by the payer – where Crown had sought to establish reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and payer – where appellant argued that the evidence was irrelevant for the purpose of proving the appellant’s intent – where Crown argued that guilt could be inferred from the evidence – where appellant sought a direction from the trial judge to the contrary of the Crown’s submission – where trial judge did not give such a direction – whether the Crown had succeeded in establishing reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose – whether the evidence was admissible for the purpose of inferring guilt – whether trial judge erred by not directing the jury, in accordance with the appellant’s request, that the Crown’s submission to that effect was wrong

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE – where appellant convicted of 34 counts or receiving a secret commission as an agent in the amount of $8,333.33 on each count and one count in the amount of $16,666,66 – where payments made monthly over a three year period – where timing of the first payment was relied upon by the Crown to infer guilt – where appellant argued that timing was not subject to an agreement between the payer and appellant and therefore tended to disprove guilt – where appellant requested trial judge read the evidence on this issue to the jury during summing-up – where trial judge overlooked the matter – whether the trial judge’s failure to deal with the issue as the appellant requested resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE –where a schedule provided to the jury to assist in its deliberations inaccurately stated certain elements of the relevant offence – where the document made clear that there were two paths to a conviction – where summing up took place over a two day period – whether inaccuracies in…

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 Nuttall

Details

AGLC: R v Nuttall [2010] QCA 64
Case: [2010] QCA 64
Decision Date: 23/03/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Nuttall, appealed against his conviction for 36 counts of receiving secret commissions as an agent. The Crown had argued that the appellant and the payer had a common purpose, while the appellant contended that the evidence was irrelevant. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on certain matters, and that the summing up was confusing and too long. The appellant further argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court had to decide whether the Crown had established reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and the payer, and whether the evidence was admissible for that purpose. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the appellant's request amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and whether inaccuracies in the schedule provided to the jury produced a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the Crown had established reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and the payer, and that the evidence was admissible for that purpose. The court also found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the appellant's request did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the inaccuracies in the schedule did not produce a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the summing up, while long, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

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

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. 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 Nuttall [2010] QCA 64
PARTIES:	R v NUTTALL, Gordon Richard (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 193 of 2009 DC No 3445 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2010
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Holmes and Fraser JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PRESENTATION OF CROWN CASE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of one count of receiving a secret commission as an agent in the amount of $60,000 – where Crown led evidence that the payment was accounted for in an unusual way by the payer – where Crown had sought to establish reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and payer – where appellant argued that the evidence was irrelevant for the purpose of proving the appellant’s intent – where Crown argued that guilt could be inferred from the evidence – where appellant sought a direction from the trial judge to the contrary of the Crown’s submission – where trial judge did not give such a direction – whether the Crown had succeeded in establishing reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose – whether the evidence was admissible for the purpose of inferring guilt – whether trial judge erred by not directing the jury, in accordance with the appellant’s request, that the Crown’s submission to that effect was wrong CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE – where appellant convicted of 34 counts or receiving a secret commission as an agent in the amount of $8,333.33 on each count and one count in the amount of $16,666,66 – where payments made monthly over a three year period – where timing of the first payment was relied upon by the Crown to infer guilt – where appellant argued that timing was not subject to an agreement between the payer and appellant and therefore tended to disprove guilt – where appellant requested trial judge read the evidence on this issue to the jury during summing-up – where trial judge overlooked the matter – whether the trial judge’s failure to deal with the issue as the appellant requested resulted in a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE –where a schedule provided to the jury to assist in its deliberations inaccurately stated certain elements of the relevant offence – where the document made clear that there were two paths to a conviction – where summing up took place over a two day period – whether inaccuracies in…