R v Seymour - [2004] QCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Seymour [2004] QCA 19

PARTIES:

R
v
SEYMOUR, David John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 71 of 2003
SC No 654 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 October 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Allow the prosecution to amend each count of the indictment by omitting the words "Keno wagers" and substituting "credit"

2. Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AMENDMENT – TIME FOR AMENDMENT – amendment of indictment after conviction and on appeal under s 572(3) Criminal Code (Qld) – whether appellant would be prejudiced by such amendment – whether trial would have been differently conducted – whether amendment allowed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant convicted on 11 counts of fraud – where defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief – whether jury’s verdicts open on the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – DEFENCE MATTERS – IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF FACT – HONEST AND REASONABLE BELIEF – whether learned trial judge’s direction to jury identified critical issues regarding authority to obtain credit – whether learned trial judge’s direction complied with requirements in Peters v R and MacLeod v R to instruct jury that issue whether at time alleged offences committed appellant had knowledge, belief or intent and if so whether alleged offences were dishonest by standards of ordinary, decent people

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS MADE IN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND RELATED CONDUCT – DENIALS – where prosecution alleged lies to establish consciousness of guilt – whether learned trial judge’s direction complied with requirements in Edwards v R and Zoneff v R

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 408C, s 572
Keno Act 1996 (Qld), s 148
Keno Rule 1997 (Qld), r 2, r 10

Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered
MacLeod v R (2003) 77 ALJR 1047, considered
Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493, considered
R v Fahey, Solomon and AD [2002] 1 Qd R 391, cited

Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered

COUNSEL:

G P Long with P E Smith for the appellant
P Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane after a 14 day trial of 11 counts of fraud with circumstances of aggravation[1] under s 408C Criminal Code. Each offence charged that, at varying dates between 19 February 1998 and 26 May 1998, he dishonestly obtained Keno wagers from…

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 Seymour

Details

AGLC: R v Seymour [2004] QCA 19
Case: [2004] QCA 19
Decision Date: 13 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Seymour involved the appellant, who was convicted on 11 counts of fraud. The appellant argued that they had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief regarding the authority to obtain credit, which the jury did not accept. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether the trial judge properly directed the jury on the critical issues, whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, and whether the prosecution's evidence regarding the appellant's consciousness of guilt was properly handled by the trial judge. The appellant also sought to amend the indictment after conviction, arguing that the amendment would not prejudice them and would allow the trial to be conducted differently.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the critical issues of authority and honest belief were sufficient, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable on the evidence, and whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the prosecution's evidence of the appellant's alleged lies. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the amendment to the indictment, which involved changing "Keno wagers" to "credit," was permissible under the law and would not prejudice the appellant.

The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the critical issues were insufficient, as they did not fully comply with the requirements set out in Peters v R and MacLeod v R. However, the court found that this did not render the verdict unreasonable or insupportable, as the evidence allowed for the jury to reasonably conclude that the appellant did not have an honest and reasonable belief regarding the authority to obtain credit. The court also found that the trial judge's handling of the prosecution's evidence regarding the appellant's alleged lies was proper, as it complied with the requirements in Edwards v R and Zoneff v R. The court further held that the amendment to the indictment was permissible under s 572(3) of the Criminal Code (Qld) and would not prejudice the appellant.

The orders of the court were to allow the prosecution to amend each count of the indictment by omitting the words "Keno wagers" and substituting "credit." The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, meaning that the appellant's conviction on the 11 counts of fraud was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the prosecution to amend each count of the indictment by omitting the words "Keno wagers" and substituting "credit"

2. 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 Seymour [2004] QCA 19
PARTIES:	R v SEYMOUR, David John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 71 of 2003 SC No 654 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 October 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the prosecution to amend each count of the indictment by omitting the words "Keno wagers" and substituting "credit" 2. Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AMENDMENT – TIME FOR AMENDMENT – amendment of indictment after conviction and on appeal under s 572(3) Criminal Code (Qld) – whether appellant would be prejudiced by such amendment – whether trial would have been differently conducted – whether amendment allowed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant convicted on 11 counts of fraud – where defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief – whether jury’s verdicts open on the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – DEFENCE MATTERS – IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF FACT – HONEST AND REASONABLE BELIEF – whether learned trial judge’s direction to jury identified critical issues regarding authority to obtain credit – whether learned trial judge’s direction complied with requirements in Peters v R and MacLeod v R to instruct jury that issue whether at time alleged offences committed appellant had knowledge, belief or intent and if so whether alleged offences were dishonest by standards of ordinary, decent people CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS MADE IN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND RELATED CONDUCT – DENIALS – where prosecution alleged lies to establish consciousness of guilt – whether learned trial judge’s direction complied with requirements in Edwards v R and Zoneff v R Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 408C, s 572 Keno Act 1996 (Qld), s 148 Keno Rule 1997 (Qld), r 2, r 10 Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered MacLeod v R (2003) 77 ALJR 1047, considered Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493, considered R v Fahey, Solomon and AD [2002] 1 Qd R 391, cited Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered
COUNSEL:	G P Long with P E Smith for the appellant P Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent