R v Pearl - [2005] QCA 237

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pearl [2005] QCA 237

PARTIES:

R
v
PEARL, Antony Mark
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2005
SC No 561 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, White and McMurdo JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CORROBORATION – WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE – ACCOMPLICES – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – where appellant convicted of importing commercial quantity of dangerous drug – where appellant and co-accused gave evidence implicating the other – where trial Judge gave orthodox directions as to evidence and need to separate consideration of respective cases against accused – where no complaint was made about these directions at trial – where appellant’s counsel did not seek redirection – whether trial Judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury as to how to assess the co-accused’s evidence in determining case against appellant – whether trial Judge should have directed the jury to approach co-accused’s evidence with caution, conscious that self-interest may have caused him to lie

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 632

Bromley v R (1986) 161 CLR 315, cited
Henning v R, unreported, NSWCCA, No 406 of 1988, No 426 of 1988, No 436 of 1988, No 425 of 1988, No 437 of 1988, 11 May 1990
R v Johnston [2004] NSWCCA 58; CA No 60250 of 2002, 18 March 2004, cited
R v Lowe [2004] QCA 398; CA No 389 of 2003, 29 October 2004, cited
Robinson v R (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531, cited
Webb & Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41, cited

COUNSEL:

P R Boulton SC for the appellant
M C Chowdhury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Lawyers for the appellant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: At the trial, each accused gave evidence implicating the other. The jury’s conviction of both presupposed a view they were accomplices, and that was the Crown case. The issue on appeal is whether, in respect of the evidence of the prisoner who has not appealed, the trial Judge should have directed the jury in the manner discussed in Webb & Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the “damning” impact of the other prisoner’s evidence, upon the case against the appellant, which necessitated such a direction.

After a four day joint trial, the appellant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of the dangerous drug “MDMA”, commonly known as ecstasy; and his co-accused D J Vermillion was convicted of the attempted possession, without reasonable excuse, of that quantity of the drug.

On 17 December 2002, customs…

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 Pearl

Details

AGLC: R v Pearl [2005] QCA 237
Case: [2005] QCA 237
Decision Date: 28 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pearl involved the appellant, who was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a dangerous drug. The appellant and a co-accused provided evidence against each other, implicating the other in the offence. The trial judge gave standard directions regarding the evidence and the need for the jury to consider the cases against each accused separately. The appellant's counsel did not object to these directions at trial nor did they seek a redirection from the judge. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in not properly directing the jury on how to assess the co-accused's evidence when determining the case against the appellant. Specifically, it was argued that the judge should have directed the jury to approach the co-accused's evidence with caution due to the potential for self-interest influencing the co-accused to lie.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's handling of the case. The judge had provided the standard directions on the evaluation of evidence, including the need for the jury to consider the cases against the appellant and the co-accused separately. The court noted that the appellant's counsel had not sought a redirection or raised any objection to the judge's directions during the trial. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's directions, as the judge had adequately discharged their duty to ensure the jury understood how to approach the evidence given by the co-accused.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The reasoning was that the trial judge had provided the necessary directions to the jury, and the appellant had not sought any further direction or raised an objection during the trial. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the evidence, and thus, the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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 Pearl [2005] QCA 237
PARTIES:	R v PEARL, Antony Mark (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 67 of 2005 SC No 561 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, White and McMurdo JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CORROBORATION – WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE – ACCOMPLICES – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – where appellant convicted of importing commercial quantity of dangerous drug – where appellant and co-accused gave evidence implicating the other – where trial Judge gave orthodox directions as to evidence and need to separate consideration of respective cases against accused – where no complaint was made about these directions at trial – where appellant’s counsel did not seek redirection – whether trial Judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury as to how to assess the co-accused’s evidence in determining case against appellant – whether trial Judge should have directed the jury to approach co-accused’s evidence with caution, conscious that self-interest may have caused him to lie Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 632 Bromley v R (1986) 161 CLR 315, cited Henning v R, unreported, NSWCCA, No 406 of 1988, No 426 of 1988, No 436 of 1988, No 425 of 1988, No 437 of 1988, 11 May 1990 R v Johnston [2004] NSWCCA 58; CA No 60250 of 2002, 18 March 2004, cited R v Lowe [2004] QCA 398; CA No 389 of 2003, 29 October 2004, cited Robinson v R (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531, cited Webb & Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41, cited
COUNSEL:	P R Boulton SC for the appellant M C Chowdhury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Boe Lawyers for the appellant Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent