R v Previte - [2005] QCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Previte [2005] QCA 95

PARTIES:

R
v
PREVITE, Ian Douglas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 381 of 2004
SC No 21 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Holmes J
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant submitted trial Judge erred in admitting handwriting evidence – where strong Crown case in no degree dependant on that evidence – where trial Judge gave directions to exclude risk of misuse of evidence – whether trial Judge erred in ruling the evidence admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellant submitted handwriting evidence was deficient – where trial Judge gave a direction to exclude risk of misuse of evidence – where appellant submitted trial Judge should have warned the jury it would be dangerous to proceed on the handwriting evidence – whether relevance of handwriting evidence was properly put before the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where copies of letters written by the appellant, containing strongly prejudicial material, were used by a handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison, and therefore came before the jury – where other inoffensive material was available – where there was no objection made or direction sought by the defence – where appellant’s character and criminal propensities otherwise emerged from the confessional material – where strong Crown case based on admissions – whether the conviction should be quashed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant drew on inconsistencies between admissions and factual circumstances – where jury instructed as to possible significance of these discrepancies – where central issue was the reliability of the appellant’s taped confessions – where there was no evidence as to why appellant would falsely confess – where key aspects of the confession found support in other evidence – whether verdicts of the jury should be set aside as unsafe and unsatisfactory

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIONS AND DECLARATIONS – ADMISSIONS – WHAT ARE AND EXTENT OF ADMISSIONS – where appellant said that on the last occasion he had taken Serepax he had done something “bad” or “silly” – whether the statement was admissible as circumstantial evidence or…

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 Previte

Details

AGLC: R v Previte [2005] QCA 95
Case: [2005] QCA 95
Decision Date: 8 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Previte, appealed against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The case before the court involved several grounds of appeal, primarily focusing on the admissibility and handling of handwriting evidence, the prejudicial impact of certain materials, and the safety of the jury's verdicts. The court had to decide whether the trial judge erred in admitting handwriting evidence and whether the prejudicial impact of the letters outweighed their probative value. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge should have warned the jury about the potential dangers of relying on the handwriting evidence and if the appellant's admissions were properly considered by the jury.

The court meticulously reviewed the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the handwriting evidence and found that while the judge did not explicitly warn the jury about the potential dangers of relying on the evidence, the directions given were sufficient to ensure the evidence was considered appropriately. The court further held that the prejudicial impact of the letters was not so significant as to warrant exclusion, especially since other inoffensive materials were available for comparison. The court also found that the appellant's admissions were adequately before the jury and were properly considered alongside other evidence, including the taped confessions. The court held that the jury was correctly instructed on the significance of any discrepancies between the admissions and the factual circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, finding that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the handwriting evidence and that the prejudicial impact of the letters was properly managed. The court also concluded that the jury's verdicts were safe and satisfactory, as they were based on substantial evidence, including the appellant's admissions and the supporting taped confessions. The court found no basis to set aside the verdicts or to order a new trial. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

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 Previte [2005] QCA 95
PARTIES:	R v PREVITE, Ian Douglas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 381 of 2004 SC No 21 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	8 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Holmes J 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant submitted trial Judge erred in admitting handwriting evidence – where strong Crown case in no degree dependant on that evidence – where trial Judge gave directions to exclude risk of misuse of evidence – whether trial Judge erred in ruling the evidence admissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellant submitted handwriting evidence was deficient – where trial Judge gave a direction to exclude risk of misuse of evidence – where appellant submitted trial Judge should have warned the jury it would be dangerous to proceed on the handwriting evidence – whether relevance of handwriting evidence was properly put before the jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where copies of letters written by the appellant, containing strongly prejudicial material, were used by a handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison, and therefore came before the jury – where other inoffensive material was available – where there was no objection made or direction sought by the defence – where appellant’s character and criminal propensities otherwise emerged from the confessional material – where strong Crown case based on admissions – whether the conviction should be quashed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant drew on inconsistencies between admissions and factual circumstances – where jury instructed as to possible significance of these discrepancies – where central issue was the reliability of the appellant’s taped confessions – where there was no evidence as to why appellant would falsely confess – where key aspects of the confession found support in other evidence – whether verdicts of the jury should be set aside as unsafe and unsatisfactory EVIDENCE – ADMISSIONS AND DECLARATIONS – ADMISSIONS – WHAT ARE AND EXTENT OF ADMISSIONS – where appellant said that on the last occasion he had taken Serepax he had done something “bad” or “silly” – whether the statement was admissible as circumstantial evidence or…