R v Shiels

Case [2011] QCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Shiels [2011] QCA 115

PARTIES:

R
v
SHIELS, Karen Louise
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 295 of 2010
CA No 61 of 2011
DC No 985 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2011

JUDGES:

Muir, Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2.   Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted following a trial of 20 counts of fraud against her employer but was acquitted of one further count of the same offence – where the prosecution took the view that there was nothing to distinguish the circumstances of one count from any of the others and the jury should therefore convict of all or none of the offences – where it was not clear on the evidence what date the appellant ceased work for the employer – where the trial judge directed the jury to consider each count separately and drew attention to the uncertainty of the date of cessation of the appellant’s employment in relation to the last count – whether the verdicts of guilty were inconsistent with the acquittal on the final count

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant received a head sentence of six years’ imprisonment for the fraud offences involving over $30,000 and lesser, concurrent terms for the remaining offences – where the applicant alleged she “only recently” received advice to seek leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant’s prospects of success in the application are poor – whether the extension of time should be granted

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, considered
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, considered
R v Cox[2010] QCA 262, considered
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited
R v Fuller [2009] QCA 195, considered
R v Goodger [2009] QCA 377, considered
R v Lebler [2003] NSWCCA 362, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
R v SBL [2009] QCA 130, considered
R v Smillie (2002) 134 A Crim R 100; [2002] QCA 341, cited
R v Taylor [1994] QCA 574, considered
R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant/appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1]      MUIR JA:  I agree that…

Continue reading R v Shiels

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Shiels [2011] QCA 115
Case
[2011] QCA 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shiels, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria of 20 counts of fraud against her employer but acquitted of an additional count. The prosecution argued that there was no discernible difference between the counts, and the jury should have convicted on all counts or none at all. The uncertainty surrounding the date the appellant ceased employment with the employer further complicated the matter. The trial judge had directed the jury to consider each count separately and highlighted the ambiguity concerning the date of cessation of employment in relation to the final count.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the guilty verdicts on 20 counts of fraud were inconsistent with the acquittal on the final count. The court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider each count separately was appropriate and whether it led to an inconsistency in the verdicts. Additionally, the court had to determine if the prosecution's argument that the jury should have convicted on all counts or none at all was valid.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider each count separately was appropriate given the evidence presented. The court held that the jury's decision to convict on 20 counts and acquit on one count did not result in an inconsistency. The court further found that the prosecution's argument did not hold water as the evidence did not clearly distinguish the final count from the others. Regarding the extension of time for the appellant to appeal against the sentence, the court refused the application, noting that the appellant's prospects of success were poor and she had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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.