R v Reynolds - [2013] QCA 338

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Reynolds [2013] QCA 338

PARTIES:

R
v
REYNOLDS, Robert John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 70 of 2013
DC No 467 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and North J concurring as to the orders made, Morrison JA dissenting in part

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Quash the conviction.

3.   Enter a verdict of acquittal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, where the entry was by means of break, the offence was committed at night, actual violence was threatened, and the appellant was armed with an offensive weapon – where the appellant was convicted on the basis of s 7 of the Criminal Code (Qld), in that he went by car to the complainant’s house with the person who actually committed the offence – where the appellant appeals against his conviction – where the appellant contends a miscarriage of justice resulted from admission of inadmissible evidence – where the appellant submits a miscarriage of justice resulted from the failure of the learned primary judge to give proper directions to the jury in relation to the use they may make of particular evidence – where the appellant contends the learned primary judge failed to give proper direction to the jury as to drawing of inferences – whether the appeal should be allowed – whether, if the appeal is allowed, a retrial should be ordered or a verdict of acquittal entered

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 7(b), s 668E(1)

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v Owen (1991) 56 SASR 397; [1991] SASC 3032, cited
R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton QC for the appellant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and am indebted to him for his setting out of the facts. I agree with what his Honour has said as to the importance of a direction on circumstantial evidence in this case. However, I differ from his view as to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The Crown case was put squarely and solely on the basis that the appellant was culpable…

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 Reynolds

Details

AGLC: R v Reynolds [2013] QCA 338
Case: [2013] QCA 338
Decision Date: 12 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence. The offence occurred at night, involved a break-in, threats of violence, and the appellant was armed with an offensive weapon. The appellant was convicted under section 7 of the Criminal Code, for accompanying the person who actually committed the offence to the complainant's house. The appellant claimed that the conviction resulted from a miscarriage of justice due to the admission of inadmissible evidence and inadequate jury directions. The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to properly instruct the jury on how they could use certain evidence and on drawing inferences. The court had to decide whether the appeal should be allowed and, if so, whether to order a retrial or enter a verdict of acquittal.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge improperly admitted inadmissible evidence and failed to provide appropriate directions to the jury. The court considered whether the admission of certain evidence and the instructions given to the jury led to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's arguments centred on the trial judge's handling of the evidence and jury instructions, which were crucial in determining the fairness and correctness of the conviction. The court needed to assess the impact of these alleged errors on the outcome of the trial.

The court concluded that the trial judge had indeed erred in admitting inadmissible evidence and in providing inadequate directions to the jury. These errors materially affected the safety of the appellant's conviction. The court found that the primary judge's handling of the evidence and instructions led to a miscarriage of justice. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of acquittal. The court's decision was based on the significant impact of the trial errors on the conviction's safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Quash the conviction.

3. Enter a verdict of acquittal.

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 Reynolds [2013] QCA 338
PARTIES:	R v REYNOLDS, Robert John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 70 of 2013 DC No 467 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	12 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes and Morrison JJA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and North J concurring as to the orders made, Morrison JA dissenting in part
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Quash the conviction. 3. Enter a verdict of acquittal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, where the entry was by means of break, the offence was committed at night, actual violence was threatened, and the appellant was armed with an offensive weapon – where the appellant was convicted on the basis of s 7 of the Criminal Code (Qld), in that he went by car to the complainant’s house with the person who actually committed the offence – where the appellant appeals against his conviction – where the appellant contends a miscarriage of justice resulted from admission of inadmissible evidence – where the appellant submits a miscarriage of justice resulted from the failure of the learned primary judge to give proper directions to the jury in relation to the use they may make of particular evidence – where the appellant contends the learned primary judge failed to give proper direction to the jury as to drawing of inferences – whether the appeal should be allowed – whether, if the appeal is allowed, a retrial should be ordered or a verdict of acquittal entered Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 7(b), s 668E(1) Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited R v Owen (1991) 56 SASR 397; [1991] SASC 3032, cited R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	C W Heaton QC for the appellant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent