R v Punj

[2002] QCA 333

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Punj [2002] QCA 333

PARTIES:

R

v

PUNJ, Pars Ram
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 331 of 2001
DC No 524 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2002

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Atkinson J
Joint reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and Atkinson J; separate reasons of Williams JA, concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal allowed
2.  Convictions quashed
3.  Retrial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant convicted of two offences against the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – whether learned trial judge erred in attempting to explain to the jury the meaning of the expression “beyond reasonable doubt” – Thomas v The Queen and Green v The Queen followed

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1, followed
Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28, followed
R v Hepworth and Fearnley [1955] 12 QB 600, not followed
R v Irlam ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2002] QCA 235; CA No 157 of 2002, 28 June 2002, followed
R v Kritz [1950] 1 KB 82, not followed
R v Onufrejczyk [1955] 1 QB 388, not followed
R v Summers [1952] 1 All ER 1059, not followed
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584, followed

COUNSEL:

O P Holdenson QC, with P W Morley, for the appellant
M J Griffin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Sharma Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the respondent

1. WILLIAMS JA:  The appellant was convicted after a trial of two offences against the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth), namely forgery and attempting to pervert the course of justice.  He appealed against the conviction on numerous grounds.  The court heard oral argument on those grounds relating to the onus and standard of proof.  At that stage the court ordered that, because of errors in the summing up, the convictions should be quashed and a re-trial held;  it announced that full reasons would be published later.

1. These reasons deal only with those matters which were the subject of oral submission.

1. The learned trial judge invited each counsel to make an opening statement so that the jury was appraised of the matters to which their attention should be directed in the course of what was anticipated to be a lengthy trial.  On that occasion counsel for the appellant said, correctly:

“By this approach you should understand that the defence does not assume any burden of proving to you that Cathy Slack was the forger.  The burden of proof at all stages of this trial rests upon the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, that high standard of proof that you heard about.”

1. The appellant…