R v Payne

[1994] QCA 498

COURT OF APPEAL
PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

DERRINGTON J

CA No 378 of 1994
THE QUEEN
v.

BRETT JOSEPH PAYNE Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 24/10/94
PINCUS JA: Mr Justice Derrington will deliver the first
judgment.

DERRINGTON J: On 30 June 1993 the applicant was convicted in the Noosa Magistrates Court of three counts of receiving stolen property. Counts 1 and 2 related to his receiving two microwave ovens which had been stolen from Tewantin State School and the third count related to his receiving a ring that had been stolen.

His appeal, which he would seek to bring eventually, relates only to orders that were made upon his conviction upon his pleas of guilty. The appeal would be limited to the orders for restitution made in respect of count 2, that is, one of the microwave ovens, and count 3, that is, in respect of the ring, because each of those items was recovered and the Crown concedes that no order for restitution should have been made in either of those cases.

The same does not apply to count 1 where the property was not recovered and so in respect of that the order for restitution of $174.50 should stand.

It being conceded by the Crown that no such orders for
restitution should have been made in respect of charges 2 and
3, the appeal of the applicant should be upheld in respect of
each of those counts but only in respect of the orders for
restitution, and they should be set aside.
The granting of the appeal and the deletion of the orders for
restitution subsumes his having been granted all necessary
leave in order to bring the appeals.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

PINCUS JA: The orders will be as indicated by my brother

Derrington.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Queen versus Brett Joseph Payne, the applicant appealed against his conviction in the Noosa Magistrates Court for receiving stolen property. The applicant was found guilty of three counts of receiving stolen property, including two microwave ovens from Tewantin State School and a ring. The appeal focused on the orders for restitution made upon his conviction for counts 2 and 3, which the Crown conceded should not have been made as the items were recovered.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the orders for restitution made in respect of counts 2 and 3 were appropriate, given that the items had been recovered. The Court held that the orders for restitution should be set aside in respect of those counts, as the Crown conceded that no such orders should have been made. However, the order for restitution in respect of count 1, which related to a microwave oven that was not recovered, was upheld.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Pincus JA, McPherson JA, and Derrington J, unanimously agreed that the appeal should be upheld in respect of the orders for restitution in counts 2 and 3, and those orders should be set aside. The Court also determined that the applicant had been granted all necessary leave to bring the appeal. Pincus JA indicated that the orders would be as outlined by Derrington J.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established