R v Quagliata

Case [2019] QCA 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 45

PARTIES:

R
v
QUAGLIATA, Troy Anthony
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2018
DC No 306 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 12 March 2018 (Durward SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Henry and Bond JJ

ORDER:

1.   The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

2.   There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

3.   Otherwise:

a.   the appeal should be adjourned to permit the appellant and the respondent to file and serve submissions as to the orders which should be made in relation to counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment;

b.   each party must file and serve written submissions as to those orders within 7 days of the date of these reasons; and

c.   the determination on the question of the orders which should be made in final disposition of the appeal will be made on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was charged with one count of trafficking and three counts of supply – where the particulars for those counts were presented on alternative bases – where it was alleged that the defendant was engaged in carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking a dangerous drug either directly or in partnership with others – where there were 20 events which constituted the evidence for all counts on the indictment – where the trial judge did not identify which events were relevant to each alternative case as particularised – whether the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the evidence relevant to each alternative

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTIO AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the particulars did not refer to s 7 of the Criminal Code – where the particulars referred to a “common unlawful purpose” – where particulars did not identify how the alleged common purpose demonstrated a proper basis of criminal responsibility – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that “joint criminal enterprise” and “common unlawful purpose” were interchangeable

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 668F

L v Western Australia (2016) 49 WAR 545; [2016] WASCA 101, considered
R v O’Dempsey[2018] QCA 364, considered
R v Palmer [2005] QCA 2, considered
R v Richards[2017] QCA 299, considered

COUNSEL:

J A Greggery QC for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Bond J and the orders his Honour proposes.

  2. HENRY J: I agree with the reasons of Bond J and…

Continue reading R v Quagliata

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 45
Case
[2019] QCA 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Quagliata, appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the evidence and the law. The conviction related to one count of trafficking and three counts of supply, each presented on alternative bases. The appellant's primary argument was that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury as to which of the 20 events were relevant to each count and alternative, leading to potential confusion and misapplication of the evidence. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge incorrectly equated "joint criminal enterprise" and "common unlawful purpose" in his directions to the jury, without properly linking these concepts to the statutory provisions and principles of criminal responsibility.

The court considered whether the trial judge's failure to identify the relevant events for each count and alternative amounted to a misdirection that warranted a new trial. It was noted that the jury's understanding of the evidence was critical, and the absence of clear direction on the applicability of specific events to each count could have prejudiced the appellant's case. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge's conflation of legal terms led to a non-direction or misdirection that affected the fairness of the trial. The court held that the trial judge's direction did not sufficiently clarify the legal standards and the evidence pertinent to each count, and the misdirection was such that it could not be regarded as a minor or inconsequential error.

Ultimately, the court quashed the conviction on count 1 of the indictment and ordered a re-trial for that count. The appeal was adjourned to allow the parties to submit written arguments on the appropriate orders for counts 2, 4, and 5. The court directed that each party file and serve their written submissions within seven days of the date of the reasons, and the final disposition of the appeal would be determined based on those submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

2. There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

3. Otherwise:

a. the appeal should be adjourned to permit the appellant and the respondent to file and serve submissions as to the orders which should be made in relation to counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment;

b. each party must file and serve written submissions as to those orders within 7 days of the date of these reasons; and

c. the determination on the question of the orders which should be made in final disposition of the appeal will be made on the papers.

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.