R v Simpson - [2008] QCA 413

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMPSON, Charmaine Jane
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 172 of 2008
DC No 467 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2008

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and White AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The appeal be allowed;1.

The conviction be quashed; and 2.

A new trial be ordered.3.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of entering premises and stealing – another person had pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property arising out of the same incident – the trial judge told the jury that the plea of guilty of the other person could be used to bolster the credibility of a Crown witness who gave evidence against the appellant – the credibility of that witness was central to the Crown case against the appellant – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v Carter and Savage, ex parte Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd R 371, cited
R v Cherry[2004] QCA 328, cited
R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cited
R v Simpson[2008] QCA 77, related
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145, [1998] HCA 23 cited
The Queen v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; [1984] HCA 38, cited

COUNSEL:

M C Chowdhury for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White AJA. I agree with the orders proposed by Her Honour, and with her reasons.

KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading a draft of the reasons for judgment prepared by White AJA. I respectfully agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by her Honour.

WHITE AJA: On the evening of 24 May 2003 the premises of the Civic Guest House in Townsville operated by Gene and Helen Vallance were entered and about $80,000 in cash taken as well as foreign currency, a laptop computer, passports, and other items of value.

On 9 August 2004 Stephen Simpson, the appellant’s son, pleaded guilty to carrying out the theft with the assistance of one Paul Millsom who kept watch outside the premises. Simpson gave evidence at the trial of his mother to the effect that she procured him to commit the crime, and to facilitate it, provided him with keys to enter the building and information…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2008] QCA 413
Case: [2008] QCA 413
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson, the appellant, appealed his conviction for one count of entering premises and stealing. The appeal arose from a trial where the credibility of a Crown witness was pivotal to the prosecution's case. The other individual involved in the incident had pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a fact the trial judge suggested could bolster the credibility of the Crown witness against Simpson. Simpson contended that this amounted to a misdirection and a miscarriage of justice, prompting the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the use of the other person's guilty plea constituted a misdirection that led to a miscarriage of justice. Simpson's legal team argued that the trial judge's direction improperly influenced the jury's assessment of the witness's credibility, which was critical to the verdict. The court had to determine if this error was significant enough to warrant a new trial, given its impact on the fairness and reliability of the proceedings.

In considering the appeal, the court held that the trial judge's direction was indeed a misdirection, as it incorrectly suggested that the guilty plea of the other person could be used to enhance the credibility of the witness. This misdirection was deemed to have a material effect on the jury's decision-making process, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the error was not trivial but rather substantial, undermining the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed;1.

The conviction be quashed; and 2.

A new trial be ordered.3.

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 Simpson [2008] QCA 413
PARTIES:	R v SIMPSON, Charmaine Jane (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 172 of 2008 DC No 467 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2008
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and White AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	The appeal be allowed;1. The conviction be quashed; and 2. A new trial be ordered.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of entering premises and stealing – another person had pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property arising out of the same incident – the trial judge told the jury that the plea of guilty of the other person could be used to bolster the credibility of a Crown witness who gave evidence against the appellant – the credibility of that witness was central to the Crown case against the appellant – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Carter and Savage, ex parte Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd R 371, cited R v Cherry[2004] QCA 328, cited R v Kirkby [2000] 2 Qd R 57; [1998] QCA 445, cited R v Simpson[2008] QCA 77, related Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145, [1998] HCA 23 cited The Queen v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; [1984] HCA 38, cited
COUNSEL:	M C Chowdhury for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent