R v Scott - [1993] QCA 236

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 78 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Scott]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

LINDSAY FRANCIS SCOTT
Appellant

The President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Thomas

Judgment delivered 21/06/93

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Letter and phone calls by appellant - Equivocal in isolation - strong circumstantial case - whether verdict unsafe - whether letter should have been admitted in exercise of discretion.

Counsel:Mr P. Alcorn for the appellant
Mr P. Ridgway for the respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the appellant
Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date(s): 11/05/93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No.78 of 1993

Brisbane

Before    The President
         Mr Justice Pincus
         Mr Justice Thomas

[R. v. Scott]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

LINDSAY FRANCIS SCOTT
Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 21/06/93

This is an appeal from a conviction for an offence of stealing as a servant. The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 10 February 1993 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
     The appellant was employed as a console operator at a twenty-four hour service station in Brisbane. His shift extended from 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m.. Another employee, Ms. Charteris worked from 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., and a third employee, Mr Dillon worked from 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.. The service station had several money tills and a "drop safe", which was inside the service station building and secured by padlock.
     Until Sunday, 1 October 1989, the appellant and Ms. Charteris shared a sexual relationship and co-habitated in rented accomodation. On that day, when Ms. Charteris completed her shift, she went to the premises where she lived with the appellant and told him that she was terminating their relationship. She then packed some clothes and made her way to her parents' home. At about 11.00 p.m. that evening, the appellant went to the service station and replaced Dillon when he completed his shift. Later, the appellant contacted Dillon and asked him to return and stand in for him for a short time, remarking that he had "girlfriend problems".   The appellant did not subsequently return to the service station at any time.
     Between 6.00 and 7.00 a.m. on Monday, 2 October 1989, the service station owner arrived at the service station and found that the padlock had been burnt from the safe and a total of almost $5,000.00 was missing from the safe, tills and a change drawer.
     An undated letter addressed to Ms. Charteris, subsequently identified as written by the appellant, was also found that morning in the console area of the service station. That letter was, so far as potentially material, as follows:

"Hi Donna

Well, what I have done, I have done. ... You'll know why I fucked off and won't be back hey some time today. ... so…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [1993] QCA 236
Case: [1993] QCA 236
Decision Date: 21 June 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott involves an appeal by the appellant, Lindsay Francis Scott, against his conviction for stealing as a servant. The conviction arose from events that transpired at a twenty-four-hour service station in Brisbane, where the appellant worked as a console operator. The appellant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment following his conviction in the District Court at Brisbane. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in admitting the appellant's letter into evidence and whether the jury's verdict was unsafe given the equivocal nature of the evidence provided by witnesses regarding telephone conversations with the appellant.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the letter into evidence, despite its potential prejudicial impact. The letter, which was addressed to the appellant's former partner, contained statements that, while equivocal on their own, could support a conviction when considered alongside other circumstantial evidence. This evidence included the appellant's unusual conduct, such as calling in another employee to cover his shift and then disappearing, as well as the significant sum of money missing from the service station. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellant's telephone conversations with two witnesses, which were also equivocal, still provided sufficient support for the jury's verdict when considered in conjunction with the other evidence. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's conviction, affirming that the evidence, despite its circumstantial nature and the equivocal statements, was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The court held that the trial judge's decision to admit the letter and the jury's verdict were both sound, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Orders