R v Shambrook

[1997] QCA 356

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 359 of 1996
Brisbane

Before      Davies J.A.

Moynihan J.

Helman J.

[R. v. Shambrook]

THE QUEEN

v.

ROBERT MALCOLM SHAMBROOK

(Applicant)  Appellant

Judgment delivered 21 October 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court.  Davies J.A. and Helman J. concurring as to the orders made.  Moynihan J. dissenting in part.

APPEAL DISMISSED EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF COUNT 2 FOR WHICH CONVICTION QUASHED AND VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL ENTERED.  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:     CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence for extortion and wilful damage - whether trial judge erred in not exercising a discretion to allow applications for adjournment indefinitely - whether jury’s verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory - whether appellant was not afforded an opportunity of a fair and proper defence - whether trial miscarried.

Counsel:Applicant/appellant appeared on own behalf.

Mr J. Henry for the respondent.

Solicitors:Applicant/appellant appeared on own behalf.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.

Hearing Date:              6 December 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.
  Judgment delivered 21 October 1997

1. The case below

   The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 17 July last year on six counts of extortion and one of wilful damage.  He was sentenced to an effective term of three years, that being the sentence imposed in respect of each of the extortion offences.  He was also sentenced to imprisonment for one year on the wilful damage count but the sentences were concurrent.  He appeals against his convictions and seeks leave to appeal against his sentences.

   The incidents which gave rise to the convictions occurred in late October and early November 1994.  The appellant was then 40 years of age.  He was a former police officer who had become a private investigator.  In that capacity, according to him, he was approached on 26 October 1994 on behalf of Mr. Charlie Chen in respect of a judgment which had been obtained against his company in the Magistrates Court by Mr. Barry Singleton.

   Mr. Singleton had performed some work for Mr. Chen's company pursuant to an agreement for a fixed sum.  Chen or the company had paid half of this sum to Mr. Singleton who then sent invoices and letters for payment of the other half but received no response.  Ultimately Mr. Singleton sued in the Magistrates Court and obtained judgment for $4,166.04.  A warrant of execution was then issued against the company for that sum.  The debt was never disputed.

   The appellant met Mr. Chen at the solicitor's office of Michael Chen & Associates.  A woman in that office acted at interpreter as Mr. Chen apparently did not speak English fluently.  The appellant was engaged, for the sum of $2,000, in his words, "to approach Mr. Barry Singleton to find out or to ask Mr. Singleton if he was prepared to drop the current warrant of execution against Mr. Chen's company and to see if…