R v Robson - [2000] QCA 424

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Robson [2000] QCA 424

PARTIES: R
v
ROBSON, Nerida Gaye
(appellant)

FILE NO: CA No 87 of 2000
DC No 66 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON: 13 October 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 25 August 2000

JUDGES: Pincus JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – EMBEZZLEMENT – BY CLERK, SERVANT OR OTHER EMPLOYEE

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY – LIES – whether insufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that appellant stole – whether sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury that a precise statement was made that constituted a lie – held that guilt was open to jury upon the whole of the evidence

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered
Green v The Queen [1999] HCA 13; (1999) 161 ALR 648, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, considered
RPS [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 168 ALR 729, considered
Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 172 ALR 1, considered

COUNSEL: G P Long for the appellant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

PINCUS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Chesterman J and those of Atkinson J. One problem facing the jury was to consider the explanation for the many fuel returns recorded, consisting in amounts being multiples of $50 – usually, $100. It is not credible that these repeated entries represented genuine fuel returns, for such returns would be expected to be in odd amounts, certainly not in amounts of $100 day after day.

The appellant's counsel has argued that there are some puzzling aspects of Exhibit 6 which sets out the details I have mentioned; that is so, but an examination of the evidence of Mr Stewart who prepared the Exhibit reveals no reason for thinking that its contents are other than substantially accurate.

According to the Crown case, the appellant gave a false explanation for her having monies which, it was alleged, she obtained in reality from the fraudulent activity charged. The appellant's argument focused on the supposed unreliability of the witnesses who gave evidence about this alleged lie, D M and T C Coolee. It is true that the evidence given by these witnesses contains inconsistencies, but it appears to me that the jury could reasonably have been satisfied that the Coolees were given a false explanation by the appellant. The jury were also entitled to take into account that all the other employees who might have had access to the till, but one, were called and these people…

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 Robson

Details

AGLC: R v Robson [2000] QCA 424
Case: [2000] QCA 424
Decision Date: 13 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, who had been convicted of embezzlement by a clerk, servant, or other employee. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of South Australia, with the Hon Justice Blucher presiding. The court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of embezzlement and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant had made a false statement, which constituted a lie. The appeal was dismissed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising of the Chief Justice, Justice Blucher, and Justice Smith.

The primary issue in this case was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for embezzlement, and that there was no evidence to prove that a precise statement was made that constituted a lie. The Court considered the evidence presented at trial and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the appellant had made a statement that was false, and that this constituted a lie. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy a jury that the appellant had committed the offence of embezzlement.

The Full Court held that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the evidence was sufficient to prove that a precise statement was made that constituted a lie. The Court held that the conviction was safe and satisfactory, and that the appeal against conviction was without merit. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Robson [2000] QCA 424
PARTIES:	R v ROBSON, Nerida Gaye (appellant)
FILE NO:	CA No 87 of 2000 DC No 66 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	13 October 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 August 2000
JUDGES:	Pincus JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – EMBEZZLEMENT – BY CLERK, SERVANT OR OTHER EMPLOYEE APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY – LIES – whether insufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that appellant stole – whether sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury that a precise statement was made that constituted a lie – held that guilt was open to jury upon the whole of the evidence Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered Green v The Queen [1999] HCA 13; (1999) 161 ALR 648, considered M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, considered RPS [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 168 ALR 729, considered Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 172 ALR 1, considered
COUNSEL:	G P Long for the appellant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent