R v. Simpson - [2008] QCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simpson [2008] QCA 77

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMPSON, Charmaine Jane
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 229 of 2007
DC No 467 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

4 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2008

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction allowed
2. Verdict of guilty set aside

3. New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant convicted of entering premises and stealing as a s 7 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) party – where appellant’s son, who was a party to the offence, pleaded guilty, gave a written undertaking under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to co-operate with law enforcement authorities, and was given a non-custodial sentence – where appellant was convicted wholly on the basis of evidence given by her son – where appellant’s son would have been liable to re-sentencing and a custodial sentence if he did not maintain the version of events he provided in the s 13A statement in court – where jury instructed as to incentive to appellant’s son to give evidence inculpating the appellant – where jury not apprised of imperative for appellant’s son not only to give, but also to maintain, his version of events – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by way of the failure to adduce evidence as to imperative for appellant’s son to maintain his version of events

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where some inconsistencies in evidence given by appellant’s son, who gave the only evidence inculpating the appellant – where witness who ought to have been able to corroborate evidence given by appellant’s son not called – whether it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 668E
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 188

R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440, considered

COUNSEL:

C A White for the appellant (pro bono)
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P:The prosecution case against the appellant, Charmaine Simpson, turned wholly on the evidence of her adult son, Stephen Simpson. He was an accomplice in the charged offence. He had provided an undertaking under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ("the Act") to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. As a result, when sentenced prior to the appellant's trial he received a lesser penalty than otherwise. A failure to…

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 77
Case: [2008] QCA 77
Decision Date: 4 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the appellant, Simpson, appealed against her conviction for entering premises and stealing, offences committed as a party under section 7 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Simpson's son, who was also a party to the offence, had pleaded guilty, provided a written statement under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to cooperate with law enforcement, and received a non-custodial sentence. Simpson's conviction was based solely on her son's evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the failure to inform the jury of the necessity for Simpson's son to maintain his version of events led to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Simpson's guilt given the inconsistencies in the son's evidence.

The primary legal issues were whether the jury's instructions about the incentive for Simpson's son to give evidence against her were sufficient, and whether the jury could reasonably have found Simpson guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The court had to consider whether the omission of the requirement for Simpson's son to maintain his version of events constituted a misdirection that could have led to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the inconsistencies in the son's testimony and the absence of a corroborating witness meant that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsafe.

The court found that the failure to inform the jury of the necessity for Simpson's son to maintain his version of events was a misdirection. This omission potentially influenced the jury's assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that the inconsistencies in the son's evidence and the lack of a corroborating witness meant that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Simpson's guilt. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was allowed, the verdict of guilty was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

No further orders were made beyond those mentioned.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed

2. Verdict of guilty set aside

3. New trial ordered

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 77
PARTIES:	R v SIMPSON, Charmaine Jane (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 229 of 2007 DC No 467 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	4 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mackenzie AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction allowed 2. Verdict of guilty set aside 3. New trial ordered
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant convicted of entering premises and stealing as a s 7 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) party – where appellant’s son, who was a party to the offence, pleaded guilty, gave a written undertaking under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to co-operate with law enforcement authorities, and was given a non-custodial sentence – where appellant was convicted wholly on the basis of evidence given by her son – where appellant’s son would have been liable to re-sentencing and a custodial sentence if he did not maintain the version of events he provided in the s 13A statement in court – where jury instructed as to incentive to appellant’s son to give evidence inculpating the appellant – where jury not apprised of imperative for appellant’s son not only to give, but also to maintain, his version of events – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by way of the failure to adduce evidence as to imperative for appellant’s son to maintain his version of events CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where some inconsistencies in evidence given by appellant’s son, who gave the only evidence inculpating the appellant – where witness who ought to have been able to corroborate evidence given by appellant’s son not called – whether it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 668E Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 188 R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440, considered
COUNSEL:	C A White for the appellant (pro bono) M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent