R v Robertson - [1993] QCA 514

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 514

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND C.A. No. 384 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Robertson]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

LOUISE ALEXANDRA ROBERTSON (Appellant)

_________________________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT
PINCUS J.A.
DAVIES J.A.
_________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 09/12/1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
_________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.
________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - INCONSISTENT VERDICTS - Appellant convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company but acquitted of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and extortion - Whether verdicts inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Applicant convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company - Conviction recorded and released upon entering into recognisance in sum of $1000 for 2 years - Whether conviction should have been recorded

Counsel:Mr Butler for the Respondent
Mr Rafter for the Appellant

Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent
Legal Aid Office for the Appellant

Date(s) of Hearing: 6 December 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND C.A. No. 384 of 1993

Brisbane

BeforeThe President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Davies

[R. v. Robertson]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

LOUISE ALEXANDRA ROBERTSON (Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 09/12/1993

The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 1 October 1992 of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company (count 2). She was released upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $1,000 for two years and a conviction was recorded against her, this being pursuant to s. 32 of the Penalties & Sentences Act. She appeals against that conviction and seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The appellant had been indicted on two other counts, entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and extortion (count 3). She was acquitted on both of these. It was the alleged inconsistency between the verdicts on each of these counts and that on the count on which she was found guilty which was the main basis for the argument on appeal.

The complainant, Dieter Meeko, and the appellant had a short business and personal relationship which ended in March 1991. During the course of that relationship, on 7 January 1991, the appellant paid $10,000 to Meeko for a half share in his business. Shortly after that, on 14 January 1991, she gave notice that she wished to withdraw from that business and consequently to obtain the return of her money. Meeko said that he was then unable to pay that money back to her but that he paid $1,000, saying that he would pay the balance when he was in a position to do so. He had not done so by 7 December 1991, the date of the events which gave rise to the present charges.

At about 6.15 a.m. on that morning, which was a Saturday, Meeko answered a knock at the door…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [1993] QCA 514
Case: [1993] QCA 514
Decision Date: 9 December 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Louise Alexandra Robertson, the appellant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 1 October 1992 of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company. The appellant appealed against her conviction and sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The appellant had been indicted on two other counts: entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and extortion, both of which she was acquitted. The appellant argued that the verdicts were inconsistent. The court considered whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge had erred in various respects, including failing to direct the jury on self-defence and the effect of the acquittals on the conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the verdicts on the various counts were inconsistent, whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury on self-defence, and whether the conviction should have been recorded. The court examined the evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to determine if the jury could have properly reached the verdicts that they did. The court also considered the sentence imposed and whether it should be appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent as a reasonable jury could have reached the verdicts based on the evidence presented. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct, including the direction that it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty on one or more and not guilty of the others or not guilty of any of the counts. The court also found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the conviction should have been recorded.

The court's final orders were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company was upheld, and the sentence imposed was confirmed.

Orders