SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Sheehan [1999] QCA 461 PARTIES: R
v
SHEEHAN, Stephen William
(Appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 133 of 1999 DC No 420 of 1998 DC No 421 of 1998 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Roma DELIVERED ON: 9 November 1999 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 14 July 1999 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Pincus JA, Thomas JA ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed CATCHWORDS: AVIATION – OFFENCES IN RELATION TO AVIATION - Operation of aircraft for charter without Air Operator's Certificate – appeal against conviction Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), s 27(2)(b), s 29 CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF – Whether judge erred in reversing onus of proof as to authorisation to conduct flight – reversal of onus by statutory provision – application of s 15D Crimes Act Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15D Attorney-General (Hong Kong) v Lee Kwong-Kut [1993] AC
951, applied
Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney
Ltd (1990) 168 CLR 594, applied
Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136, applied
Henshaw v Mark & Ors (1997) 95 ACrimR 115, considered
May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654, applied
R v Field CA No 428 of 1996, 29 November 1996; [1996]
QCA 477, considered
R v Golding [1973] WAR 5, considered
Rook v Maynard (No 2) (1994) 123 ALR 677, considered
Satterley v Palmer [1947] SASR 346, considered
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC
462, appliedCRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF – DEFENCES – Whether honest and reasonable mistake of fact applied – whether applicant bore onus and to what standard – whether s 15D Crimes Act provides a statutory exception to the normal onus required regarding mistake of fact – whether mistake of law or fact He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523, followed
Strathfield Municipal Council v Elvy (1992) 25 NSWLR
745, considered
Thomas v The King (1937) 59 CLR 279, followedCONSTITUTIONAL LAW – IMPERIAL, COLONIAL, STATE AND COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS – GENERALLY – SOVEREIGNTY – Whether Civil Aviation Act invalid because of break in Australian sovereignty Joosse v ASIC (1998) 73 ALJR 232; [1998] HCA 77, applied McClure v Australian Electoral Commission [1999] HCA 31, followed COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Mr G R Rice for the respondentSOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the
respondent
McMURDO P AND THOMAS JA: The appellant was convicted after a four day trial on 15 March 1999 in the District Court at Roma of one count of operating an aircraft in Australian territory for a prescribed commercial purpose otherwise than as authorised by an Air Operator's Certificate under s 27(2)(b) Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) on or about 25 October 1996.
The appellant who represents himself appeals against his conviction on a number of…
Continue reading R v Sheehan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Sheehan [1999] QCA 461
- Case
- [1999] QCA 461
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant appealed against his conviction for operating an aircraft for charter without an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC). The facts of the case were that on 25 October 1996, the appellant piloted a Cessna 210 between Longreach, Queensland and Moree, New South Wales for a charter flight, without the required AOC for himself or his company, Crossroads Aviation. A mechanical difficulty had interrupted a charter flight by McAlister Airways, leading to the appellant being contacted to complete the journey for $2,300. The appellant argued that he had operated under the authority of an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation, although this was contested by the prosecution and the evidence presented.
The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to another party. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the onus of proof on him to demonstrate that he had lawful authority. The court had to consider the provisions of section 15D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which addresses the burden of proof in cases where an act is an offence if done without lawful authority, and whether this section applied to the appellant's situation.
The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he had lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation. The evidence showed that Alpine Aviation had no AOC at the time of the flight, and there was no financial or practical connection between Alpine Aviation and Crossroads Aviation. The court also noted that the letter from the proprietor of Alpine Aviation, which the appellant relied upon, was ambiguous and did not provide clear evidence of authorisation. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to another party. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the onus of proof on him to demonstrate that he had lawful authority. The court had to consider the provisions of section 15D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which addresses the burden of proof in cases where an act is an offence if done without lawful authority, and whether this section applied to the appellant's situation.
The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he had lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation. The evidence showed that Alpine Aviation had no AOC at the time of the flight, and there was no financial or practical connection between Alpine Aviation and Crossroads Aviation. The court also noted that the letter from the proprietor of Alpine Aviation, which the appellant relied upon, was ambiguous and did not provide clear evidence of authorisation. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
The appellant who represents himself appeals against his conviction on a number of grounds. The facts The particulars provided of the offence were that on 25 October 1996 the appellant in a flight between Longreach, Queensland and Moree, New South Wales, piloted an aircraft, namely a Cessna 210 for a prescribed commercial purpose (charter) otherwise than as authorised by an AOC. The appellant conducted a business, Crossroads Aviation, as an air charter operator at Longreach. A charter flight conducted by McAlister Airways carrying passengers from the Northern Territory to Moree in New South Wales was interrupted at Longreach due to mechanical difficulty. The pilot contacted the appellant from a Yellow Pages telephone book entry and made arrangements for the appellant to fly the passengers from Longreach to Moree for $2,300. The appellant did this; neither he nor Crossroads Aviation held an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC). Mr Neil Enders, a Civil Aviation Safety Authority Investigator, gave evidence that he had no record of any AOC issued to the appellant or to Crossroads Aviation; at the time of this offence it was common for a pilot or company to operate under the authority of another pilot or company's AOC; this procedure has ended since the passing of Civil Aviation Ordinance 82.3 late in 1998. The appellant gave evidence; he admitted making the flight as set out by the prosecution but claimed he was operating under the authority of an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation. His claim was supported by a letter apparently dated 1 June 1996 from the proprietor of Alpine Aviation stating: "To whom it may concern. This note is to certify that Crossroads Aviation has permission to operate under the provisions of the Air Operator's Certificate issued to Alpine Aviation." The original letter has the date missing in part; a photocopy shows the date "1.6.96"; the "6" in 96 appears overwritten and may be a "5" changed to a "6". The proprietor of Alpine Aviation Mr Ben Buckley gave evidence for the defence by telephone link; he said he had written the letter. In cross-examination he agreed that Alpine Aviation had no AOC after 30 June 1996 and consequently no AOC at the relevant time. There was no financial arrangement or any practical connection between Mr Buckley and his company Alpine Aviation and the appellant and his company Crossroads Aviation; both the appellant and Mr Buckley have a mutual interest in Aircraft Licence Holders and Associates Reform Movement (ALHARM). The onus and balance of proof as to authorisation The appellant submits the trial judge erred in reversing the onus of proof requiring the appellant to demonstrate that the flight had been conducted under the authority of an AOC. Section 15D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides: "Where under any law of the Commonwealth any act, if done without lawful authority, or without lawful authority or excuse, or without permission, is an offence against that law, the burden of proving that the act was done with lawful authority, or with lawful authority or excuse, or with permission (as the case may be), shall be on the person accused."
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.