Legal Research
Cases
R v Robinson

R v Robinson

Case [1986] HCA 48 13 August 1986

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ.

THE QUEEN v. KEVIN JOHN NORMAN ROBINSON

13 August 1986

Decisions

GIBBS C.J.: An indictment presented in the District Court of Queensland charged that the respondent, being a servant, stole sums of money amounting to more than $4,000. The respondent pleaded guilty. The learned District Court Judge ordered that the respondent be discharged upon his entering into his own recognizance in the sum of $500, conditioned that he appear and receive judgment of the court at any time when called upon within a period of twelve months and further conditioned that he in the meantime keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The order was made in exercise of the power given by s.19(9) of the Criminal Code (Q.) ("the Code"), which is in the following terms:

"When a person is convicted of any offence, the Court or Justices may, instead of passing sentence, discharge the offender upon his entering into his own recognizance, with or without sureties, in such sum as the Court or Justices may think fit, conditioned that he shall appear and receive judgment at some future sittings of the Court or when called upon within a period specified by the Court or Justices and, if the Court or Justices think fit, that he shall in the meantime keep the peace and be of good behaviour."

The Attorney-General of Queensland gave notice that he appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal "against the sentence imposed on the ... respondent", on the ground of its inadequacy. By s.669A(1) of the Code, the Attorney-General may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal "against any sentence pronounced by ... the court of trial" and the Court of Criminal Appeal may "vary the sentence and impose such sentence as to the Court seems proper". In the present case the Court of Criminal Appeal, following an earlier decision of its own in Reg. v. Beldan (1985, unreported), held that the order made by the learned District Court Judge was not a sentence within the meaning of s.669A and dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The Attorney-General now seeks special leave to appeal from that decision.

2. Section 18 of the Code lists the punishments which may be inflicted under the Code and includes in the list "Finding security to keep the peace and be of good behaviour". By s.19(7) a convicted person may, instead of, or in addition to, any punishment to which he is liable, be ordered to enter into his own recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and may be ordered to be imprisoned until such recognizance is entered into; other provisions, like s.19(9), empower the court to discharge the offender upon his entering into his own recognizance, with or without sureties: see s.19(8) and s.19(9A). In certain circumstances, where the court thinks it not expedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, the court may…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [1986] HCA 48
Case: [1986] HCA 48
Decision Date: 13 August 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Robinson, a criminal matter concerning the appellant's conviction for armed robbery. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and whether the jury directions on self-defence were adequate. Specifically, the court had to consider the relevance of the prior convictions to the issue of intent and the correct interpretation of the elements of self-defence in the context of the alleged robbery.

The Court held that the admission of the prior convictions was prejudicial and therefore inadmissible, as their probative value did not outweigh their potential to unfairly influence the jury. Regarding self-defence, the Court clarified that the defence requires an honest belief that the force used was necessary to defend oneself, even if that belief is mistaken, provided it is a reasonable belief in the circumstances. The jury directions were found to be deficient in adequately explaining this subjective and objective test.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders