R v Rigney-Hopkins - [2005] QCA 275

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275

PARTIES:

R
v
RIGNEY-HOPKINS, Christopher Bradley Grzegorz
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 163 of 2005
DC No 1306 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2005

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction granted
2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – REFUSAL OF ADJOURNMENT – appellant convicted after jury trial of dishonestly obtaining a chose in action worth $66,021.13 from a Canadian citizen via transfer of funds – appellant represented himself at trial – prosecution disclosed 3,000 documents seized from appellant’s computer to the appellant less than 10 days prior to the trial commencing – appellant complained of this at the commencement of the trial but did not ask for an adjournment – appellant refused judge’s suggestion to obtain legal representation – prosecution only relied on 36 of these documents – appellant later submitted to the judge that a second person was involved whom he was unable to identify for fear of harm to his family – whether the judge’s failure to order an adjournment at particular stages of the trial despite the appellant’s lack of request for one caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – judge admitted documents seized under two search warrants – warrants declared both that the appellant was suspected of an offence of fraud and (mistakenly) that the property was to be used in forfeiture proceedings – issuing justice of the peace gave evidence that he knew the property was not to be used in forfeiture proceedings – seized documents included evidence of appellant changing identities – whether the justice of the peace issued warrants that were beyond his power – whether the judge erred in admitting evidence seized by these warrants – whether the evidence of a new identity not alleged to be used in committing the offence had probative value

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – OTHER MATTERS – appellant submitted that prosecution had not identified any “chose in action” dishonestly obtained by the appellant – complainant arranged to transfer funds from his Canadian bank account to an account linked to the appellant in Australia – no evidence led on whether choses in action recognised under Canadian law – whether appropriate to assume Canadian law same as Australian law – whether credit amount obtained by appellant from complainant could be defined as…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rigney-Hopkins and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QCA 275
Decision Date: 5 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rigney-Hopkins, the appellant appealed against his conviction for dishonestly obtaining a chose in action from a Canadian citizen. The appellant was convicted following a jury trial after representing himself and complained that the prosecution disclosed 3,000 documents seized from his computer less than 10 days before the trial. The appellant argued that the judge should have granted an adjournment when he raised this issue at the commencement of the trial, and that the failure to do so caused a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues in the case centred around the judge's refusal to order an adjournment and the admission of evidence seized under search warrants. The appellant argued that the warrants were beyond the power of the issuing justice of the peace, and that the judge erred in admitting the evidence. Additionally, the appellant submitted that the prosecution had not identified any "chose in action" dishonestly obtained by him. The court considered whether Canadian law, which was not fully explored in the trial, was the same as Australian law and whether the credit amount obtained by the appellant could be defined as a chose in action.

The court found that the appellant's failure to request an adjournment and the judge's refusal to order one did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that the warrants were valid, and the evidence seized was admissible. Furthermore, the court held that it was appropriate to assume that Canadian law was the same as Australian law for the purposes of the trial, and that the credit amount obtained by the appellant could be defined as a chose in action. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time in which to appeal against the conviction was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction granted

2. Appeal 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 Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275
PARTIES:	R v RIGNEY-HOPKINS, Christopher Bradley Grzegorz (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 163 of 2005 DC No 1306 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 August 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 July 2005
JUDGES:	Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction granted 2. Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – REFUSAL OF ADJOURNMENT – appellant convicted after jury trial of dishonestly obtaining a chose in action worth $66,021.13 from a Canadian citizen via transfer of funds – appellant represented himself at trial – prosecution disclosed 3,000 documents seized from appellant’s computer to the appellant less than 10 days prior to the trial commencing – appellant complained of this at the commencement of the trial but did not ask for an adjournment – appellant refused judge’s suggestion to obtain legal representation – prosecution only relied on 36 of these documents – appellant later submitted to the judge that a second person was involved whom he was unable to identify for fear of harm to his family – whether the judge’s failure to order an adjournment at particular stages of the trial despite the appellant’s lack of request for one caused a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – judge admitted documents seized under two search warrants – warrants declared both that the appellant was suspected of an offence of fraud and (mistakenly) that the property was to be used in forfeiture proceedings – issuing justice of the peace gave evidence that he knew the property was not to be used in forfeiture proceedings – seized documents included evidence of appellant changing identities – whether the justice of the peace issued warrants that were beyond his power – whether the judge erred in admitting evidence seized by these warrants – whether the evidence of a new identity not alleged to be used in committing the offence had probative value CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – OTHER MATTERS – appellant submitted that prosecution had not identified any “chose in action” dishonestly obtained by the appellant – complainant arranged to transfer funds from his Canadian bank account to an account linked to the appellant in Australia – no evidence led on whether choses in action recognised under Canadian law – whether appropriate to assume Canadian law same as Australian law – whether credit amount obtained by appellant from complainant could be defined as…