Legal Research
Cases
R v Robinson

R v Robinson

Case [2009] QCA 250 1 September 2009

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robinson [2009] QCA 250

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBINSON, Robert Raymond Lloyd
(appellant)

R
v
ROBINSON, Robert Raymond Lloyd
(respondent)
EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 251 of 2008
CA No 253 of 2008
DC No 2323 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Appeal by Cwth DPP

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane and Muir JJA concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed

2.   Convictions and orders made below set aside

3.   Retrial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant convicted of two counts of contravening
s 26(1) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth) – where s 26(1) refers to "power" and "duty" and "proper purpose" – where appellant alleged that trial judge erred in failing to provide the jury with any instruction as to

the nature and scope of those matters – whether failure to instruct jury on those matters an error of law

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth), s 3, s 7, s 10, s 27, s 30, s 44, s 45, s 45A, s 45B
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth),
s 21, s 22, s 23, s 25, s 26, s 27B
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 2, s 3, s 4, s 179, s 180, s 181, s 182, s 183, s 184, s 185, s 1317E, s 1317F, s 1317G,
s 1317H
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 130.1, s 148.1, s 148.2
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15

Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569; [1976] HCA 55, cited
Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation
(No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited
Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited
McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited
R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005] NSWSC 274, cited
R v Allouche [1998] QCA 216, cited
R v Cassidy [2005] NSWSC 410, cited
R v Evans, unreported, County Court, Vic, Judge Nixon,
29 February 2008, cited
R v Lo (2007) 174 A Crim R 451; [2007] NSWSC 105

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 [2009] QCA 250
Case: [2009] QCA 250
Decision Date: 1 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robinson, the appellant, Robinson, was convicted of two counts of contravening section 26(1) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth). This legislation pertains to the misuse of "power" and "duty" and the concept of "proper purpose." Robinson appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury adequately on the nature and scope of the elements of the offence, specifically the terms "power," "duty," and "proper purpose." The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge's omission constituted an error of law that warranted a new trial.

The court considered the summing up as a whole, recognising that while the trial judge did not explicitly define the terms in question, the context in which they were used in the summing up allowed the jury to understand the necessary elements of the offence. However, the court concluded that the failure to provide clear and explicit instructions on these critical components was indeed an error of law. The omission of these instructions was significant enough to potentially affect the fairness of the trial and the jury's ability to apply the law correctly.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and orders made in the trial court, and ordered a retrial. This decision underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive jury instructions in criminal trials, particularly when dealing with complex statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Convictions and orders made below set aside

3. Retrial ordered

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Robinson [2009] QCA 250

Most Recent Citation

R v Robinson [2012] QCA 309

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

R v Hayward
[2019] QCA 91 Para 4

…sel was not a hurdle. It was the duty of the learned trial judge to give adequate directions about the elements of the offence.[55] [55] R v Robinson [2009] QCA 250.…
Sims v Jooste [No 2]
[2014] WASC 373

…) 192 CLR 493 R v Adler [2005] NSWSC 274; (2005) 53 ACSR 471 R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 R v Lo [2007] NSWSC 105; (2007) 174 A Crim R 451 R v Robinson [2009] QCA 250; [2010] 2 Qd R 446 R v Williams [2005] NSWSC 315; (2005) 152 A Crim R 548 Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb [1982] HCA 4; (1982) 150 CLR 500 SAJ…
R v Robinson
[2012] QCA 309

…R v Koolmatrie (1989) 52 SASR 482, cited R v Robinson [2010] 2 Qd R 446; [2009] QCA 250 , considered R v Taufahema (2007) 228 CLR 232; [2007] HCA 11, considered R v Wilkes (1948) 77 CLR 511; [1948] HCA 22, considered Williams v Commonwealth of Australia (2012) 86 ALJR 713; [2012] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: P J Calla…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

HML v The Queen
[2008] HCA 16

…96) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005]…
R v Lo
[2007] NSWSC 105

…005] NSWSC 410, cited R v Evans , unreported, County Court, Vic, Judge Nixon, 29 February 2008, cited R v Lo (2007) 174 A Crim R 451; [2007] NSWSC 105, cited R v Williams (2005) 216 ALR 113; [2005] NSWSC 315, cited RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited COUNSEL: P J Callaghan SC, with T D Gardiner,…
R v Cassidy
[2005] NSWSC 410 Para 1

…age its day to day affairs. In the present case, the appellant had no power or duty as a Commissioner to manage the day to day affairs of ATSIC. [5][2005] NSWSC 410. [6](2005) 53 ACSR 471. [7](2005) 216 ALR 113. [8](2007) 174 A Crim R 451. [9] R v Evans , unreported, County Court, Vic, Judge Nixon, 29 February 2008…
R v Williams
[2005] NSWSC 315

…t, Vic, Judge Nixon, 29 February 2008, cited R v Lo (2007) 174 A Crim R 451; [2007] NSWSC 105, cited R v Williams (2005) 216 ALR 113; [2005] NSWSC 315, cited RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited COUNSEL: P J Callaghan SC, with T D Gardiner, for the appellant B W Farr SC, with D R Kent, for the re…
R v Adler
[2005] NSWSC 274

…en (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005] NSWSC 274, cited R v Allouche [1998] QCA 216, cited R v Cassidy [2005] NSWSC 410, cited R v Evans , unreported, County Court, Vic, Judge Nixon, 29 February 2008, cited R v Lo…
Ryan v The Queen
[2000] HCA 60

…p Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2…
Re Ruddock; Ex parte Reyes
[2000] HCA 66 Para 1

…will not have been unfair, and fairness is the central thesis of the administration of criminal justice in Australia.[38] [36] Crampton v R (2000) 206 CLR 161 at 173. [37] Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 at 52-53 per Hayne J; see also the cases cited by Keane JA in paras [43] and [44]. [38] McKinney v R (1991)…
RPS v The Queen
[2000] HCA 3

…74 A Crim R 451; [2007] NSWSC 105, cited R v Williams (2005) 216 ALR 113; [2005] NSWSC 315, cited RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited COUNSEL: P J Callaghan SC, with T D Gardiner, for the appellant B W Farr SC, with D R Kent, for the respondent SOLICITORS: Creevey Russell Lawyers for the app…
Melbourne v The Queen
[1999] HCA 32

…35 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005] NSWSC 274, cited R v Allouche [1998] QCA 216, cited R v Cassidy [2005] NSWSC 410, cited R v Evans , unreported, County Co…
R v Allouche
[1998] QCA 216 Para 1

…His Honour was entitled to conclude that the jury would doubtless take those circumstances into account in assessing the prosecutor’s conduct. [43][1998] QCA 216.…
Crofts v The Queen
[1996] HCA 22

…25 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468;…
Herscu v The Queen
[1991] HCA 40

…206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1;…
McKinney v The Queen
[1991] HCA 6

…) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005] NSWSC 274, cited R v Allouche [1998] QCA 216, cited R v Cass…
Beckwith v the Queen
[1976] HCA 55

…), s 590AA Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 130.1, s 148.1, s 148.2 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569; [1976] HCA 55, cited Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60,…
Mills v Mills
[1938] HCA 4

…passing a responsibility to act for the benefit of the company: Richard Brady Franks Ltd v Price (1937) 58 CLR 112 at 138 (Rich J); Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150 at 188 (Dixon J). Those cases also demonstrate the close relationship between the duty to exercise powers properly and the duty to act in the interests o…
Richard Brady Franks Ltd v Price
[1937] HCA 42

…honestly and it soon came to be regarded as encompassing a responsibility to act for the benefit of the company: Richard Brady Franks Ltd v Price (1937) 58 CLR 112 at 138 (Rich J); Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150 at 188 (Dixon J). Those cases also demonstrate the close relationship between the duty to exercise power…
R v Adams
[1935] HCA 62

…or doubtful the ambiguity or doubt may be resolved in favour of the subject by refusing to extend the category of criminal offences: see R v Adams ((1935) 53 CLR 563, at pp 567-568); Craies on Statute Law , 7th ed (1971), pp 529-534. The rule is perhaps one of last resort.”…
Crampton v The Queen
[2000] HCA 6023

…5 CLR 569; [1976] HCA 55, cited Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Q…
[2008] WASC 239
[2008] WASC 239 Para 1

…oup Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) .[31] Some extracts of what his Honour wrote are particularly relevant: [31](2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth)
3 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth)
21 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
2 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
15 2 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Robinson [2009] QCA 250
PARTIES:	R v ROBINSON, Robert Raymond Lloyd (appellant) R v ROBINSON, Robert Raymond Lloyd (respondent) EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 251 of 2008 CA No 253 of 2008 DC No 2323 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Sentence Appeal by Cwth DPP
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	1 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Muir JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane and Muir JJA concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Convictions and orders made below set aside 3. Retrial ordered
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant convicted of two counts of contravening s 26(1) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth) – where s 26(1) refers to "power" and "duty" and "proper purpose" – where appellant alleged that trial judge erred in failing to provide the jury with any instruction as to the nature and scope of those matters – whether failure to instruct jury on those matters an error of law Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth), s 3, s 7, s 10, s 27, s 30, s 44, s 45, s 45A, s 45B Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth), s 21, s 22, s 23, s 25, s 26, s 27B Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 2, s 3, s 4, s 179, s 180, s 181, s 182, s 183, s 184, s 185, s 1317E, s 1317F, s 1317G, s 1317H Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 130.1, s 148.1, s 148.2 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569; [1976] HCA 55, cited Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1; [2008] WASC 239, cited Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited Herscu v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 276; [1991] HCA 40, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468; [1991] HCA 6, cited Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited R v Adler (2005) 53 ACSR 471; [2005] NSWSC 274, cited R v Allouche [1998] QCA 216, cited R v Cassidy [2005] NSWSC 410, cited R v Evans, unreported, County Court, Vic, Judge Nixon, 29 February 2008, cited R v Lo (2007) 174 A Crim R 451; [2007] NSWSC 105