R v Peter Paul Flanigan No. SCCRM 96/430 Judgment No. 6114 Number of Pages 9 Criminal Law

The appellant, Peter Paul Flanigan, appealed against his conviction and sentence following his conviction in the District Court on thirty-four counts of larceny as a servant. The jury convicted the appellant of twenty-five counts and acquitted him of seven. The trial Judge imposed a global sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The appellant's grounds of appeal were: (1) the trial Judge should have excluded evidence of his volunteered statements during a police search of his house; (2) the trial Judge should have excluded evidence of an alleged attempt by the appellant to suborn a witness; (3) the trial Judge should not have permitted the prosecution to amend certain counts of the information; (4) the trial Judge should have given a more adequate direction to the jury on the use of evidence on one count to prove other counts; and (5) the trial Judge erred in his lies direction. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. The Court substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eighteen months, with both head sentence and non-parole period running from 1 February 1997.

The Court held that the evidence of the appellant's volunteered statements during the police search of his house was properly admitted. The appellant had initially declined to answer questions but later volunteered information about the ownership of certain property. The Court held that the appellant had not waived his right to silence and that the police were entitled to ask him questions on the subject of the identification of any of Renniks' property at his house. The Court also held that the evidence of an alleged attempt by the appellant to suborn a witness was properly admitted. The Court held that the prosecution was generally open to prove that an accused person has attempted to suborn a Crown witness and that it was open to the jury to find that the appellant was attempting to induce McQuade to give a false account of the matter. The Court further held that the trial Judge's direction to the jury on the use of evidence on one count to prove other counts was adequate and that the trial Judge's lies direction was not unfavourable to the appellant. Finally, the Court held that the convictions were safe and satisfactory.

The Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the assessment of the stolen goods' value appears to have been based chiefly on the figures alleged in the information, which appear to be more than the evidence supports. The Court also held that it is simply not possible to determine from the evidence over what span of time the thefts were made. The Court substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eighteen months, with both head sentence and non-parole period running from 1 February 1997.