R v Robinson - [2010] QCA 377

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robinson [2010] QCA 377

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBINSON, Allan Norman
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 36 of 2010
SC No 110 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of substituting the term of eight years imprisonment for the term of 10 years cumulative imprisonment, and substituting for 19 May 2028 as the date fixed for parole eligibility, the date 19 November 2026.

3. The sentence is otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – appellant convicted after trial of one count of trafficking dangerous drug, methylamphetamine – prosecution relied on evidence of witness Doorley who assisted in trafficking business and evidence of four other witnesses who purchased quantities of methylamphetamine – prosecution also relied on telephone records and forensic accounting evidence – trial judge directed jury that assessment of Doorley's evidence must be treated with caution as may be unreliable – trial judge did not give similar directions regarding evidence of the other four witnesses – whether trial judge's directions were inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – trial judge did not give directions about expert financial evidence in the terms set out in the Benchbook – trial judge directed jury that they were sole judges of facts, they must consider credibility and reliability of witnesses and explained concessions made by expert witness – whether direction given by trial judge reversed onus of proof – whether direction should have been given in terms set out in Benchbook – whether trial judge's directions caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – defence wished to call evidence from witness where evidence would to go only to prosecution witnesses' credit – judge refused to admit the evidence – whether evidence ruled inadmissible was an exception to the rule that witness's answers as to credit are final – whether evidence should have been admitted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – appellant sentenced to 10 years imprisonment cumulative upon 18 years imprisonment for maintaining unlawful relationship with a child and two counts of rape – parole eligibility fixed at 19 May 2028 – appellant did not cooperate with authorities – appellant showed little remorse – appellant had commenced rehabilitation in prison and would be 69 years old…

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 [2010] QCA 377
Case: [2010] QCA 377
Decision Date: 23 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robinson, appealed against his conviction for trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, and his sentence of 10 years imprisonment, cumulative upon other sentences. The appeal raised issues concerning the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, the admission of evidence, and the severity of the sentence. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of a key witness, Doorley, who was involved in the trafficking operation, and four other witnesses who had purchased methylamphetamine. The prosecution also presented telephone records and forensic accounting evidence. The trial judge directed the jury to treat Doorley's evidence with caution due to its potential unreliability but did not give similar directions regarding the other four witnesses. Robinson argued that the trial judge's directions were inadequate and may have caused a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the trial judge's directions about the expert financial evidence conformed to the guidelines in the Benchbook and whether the judge's directions about the credibility and reliability of witnesses, including the expert witness, reversed the onus of proof. The court also considered whether the trial judge's directions caused a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court reviewed whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence from a defence witness that would have gone to the credit of the prosecution witnesses. The court determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, and the evidence in question was rightly excluded as it fell under the general rule that a witness's answers as to credit are final.

Robinson's appeal against sentence contended that the combined sentence was manifestly excessive, considering his offending and personal circumstances. The court assessed whether the sentence was disproportionate in light of Robinson's lack of cooperation with authorities, limited remorse, and the fact that he would be 69 years old when eligible for parole. The court found that while the sentence was harsh, it was not manifestly excessive. However, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and reduced the term of imprisonment from 10 years cumulative to eight years, and adjusted the parole eligibility date from 19 May 2028 to 19 November 2026. The remainder of the sentence was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of substituting the term of eight years imprisonment for the term of 10 years cumulative imprisonment, and substituting for 19 May 2028 as the date fixed for parole eligibility, the date 19 November 2026.

3. The sentence is otherwise confirmed.

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 Robinson [2010] QCA 377
PARTIES:	R v ROBINSON, Allan Norman (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 36 of 2010 SC No 110 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2010
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of substituting the term of eight years imprisonment for the term of 10 years cumulative imprisonment, and substituting for 19 May 2028 as the date fixed for parole eligibility, the date 19 November 2026. 3. The sentence is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – appellant convicted after trial of one count of trafficking dangerous drug, methylamphetamine – prosecution relied on evidence of witness Doorley who assisted in trafficking business and evidence of four other witnesses who purchased quantities of methylamphetamine – prosecution also relied on telephone records and forensic accounting evidence – trial judge directed jury that assessment of Doorley's evidence must be treated with caution as may be unreliable – trial judge did not give similar directions regarding evidence of the other four witnesses – whether trial judge's directions were inadequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – trial judge did not give directions about expert financial evidence in the terms set out in the Benchbook – trial judge directed jury that they were sole judges of facts, they must consider credibility and reliability of witnesses and explained concessions made by expert witness – whether direction given by trial judge reversed onus of proof – whether direction should have been given in terms set out in Benchbook – whether trial judge's directions caused a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – defence wished to call evidence from witness where evidence would to go only to prosecution witnesses' credit – judge refused to admit the evidence – whether evidence ruled inadmissible was an exception to the rule that witness's answers as to credit are final – whether evidence should have been admitted CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – appellant sentenced to 10 years imprisonment cumulative upon 18 years imprisonment for maintaining unlawful relationship with a child and two counts of rape – parole eligibility fixed at 19 May 2028 – appellant did not cooperate with authorities – appellant showed little remorse – appellant had commenced rehabilitation in prison and would be 69 years old…