R v Rowe - [2006] QCA 379

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rowe [2006] QCA 379

PARTIES:

R
v
ROWE, Robert James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 40 of 2006
DC No 2029 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 August 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Dutney J
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 - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant was convicted of two counts of either stealing a number plate or alternatively receiving a stolen number plate with the circumstance of aggravation that it had been obtained by a crime, one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence - where appellant contends that primary judge erred in permitting prosecution to adduce evidence of items found at his home and also in directing jury about appellant's failure to give evidence in terms outside guidelines established in Azzopardi v The Queen - whether primary judge did so err - whether there has been procedural unfairness resulting in a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)

Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50, followed

Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517, cited

Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593, cited

R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, applied

Thompson and Wran v The Queen (1968) 117 CLR 313, cited

Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 223 ALR 662, applied

COUNSEL:

J D Briggs for appellant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The appellant Robert James Rowe pleaded not guilty to two counts of stealing a number plate (counts 1 and 3), alternatively receiving a stolen number plate with the circumstance of aggravation that it had been obtained by a crime (counts 2 and 4), unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence (count 5) and armed robbery in company with personal violence (count 6). After a three day trial the jury convicted him of counts 5 and 6 and found him to be guilty of either count 1 or count 2 and either count 3 or count 4 but they were unable to say of which of the alternative counts he was guilty. He appeals against his convictions contending that the trial judge erred, first, in permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence of items found at his former Kedron home on 13 November 2002 and, second, in directing the…

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 Rowe

Details

AGLC: R v Rowe [2006] QCA 379
Case: [2006] QCA 379
Decision Date: 29 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rowe, appealed against his conviction on various criminal charges, including theft and receiving stolen property, unlawfully using a motor vehicle, and armed robbery. The primary judge allowed the prosecution to present evidence of items found at the appellant's residence and directed the jury concerning the appellant's failure to give evidence. The appellant contended that these actions constituted errors that resulted in procedural unfairness and a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered whether the primary judge erred in admitting evidence of items found at the appellant's home and in directing the jury about the appellant's failure to give evidence. The court also examined whether these alleged errors resulted in procedural unfairness that led to a miscarriage of justice. The primary issues were whether the evidence was relevant and whether the jury direction complied with the guidelines established in Azzopardi v The Queen.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in admitting the evidence of items found at the appellant's home, as the items were relevant to the charges. The court further held that the jury direction was within the guidelines established in Azzopardi v The Queen. The court found no procedural unfairness or miscarriage of justice in the trial. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction remained intact.

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 Rowe [2006] QCA 379
PARTIES:	R v ROWE, Robert James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 40 of 2006 DC No 2029 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 August 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Dutney J 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 - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant was convicted of two counts of either stealing a number plate or alternatively receiving a stolen number plate with the circumstance of aggravation that it had been obtained by a crime, one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence - where appellant contends that primary judge erred in permitting prosecution to adduce evidence of items found at his home and also in directing jury about appellant's failure to give evidence in terms outside guidelines established in Azzopardi v The Queen - whether primary judge did so err - whether there has been procedural unfairness resulting in a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A) Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50, followed Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517, cited Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, applied Thompson and Wran v The Queen (1968) 117 CLR 313, cited Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 223 ALR 662, applied
COUNSEL:	J D Briggs for appellant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent