Williams JA and Mackenzie and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed 2. Convictions and verdicts on counts 3 and 4 on indictment set aside and verdicts of acquittal entered on both counts.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant convicted of one count of arson and one count of fraud and acquitted of one count of arson and one count of fraud – where appeal against conviction – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether guilty verdicts inconsistent with acquittals on remaining counts – whether rational basis for differing verdicts
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – EVIDENCE OF ACCOMPLICE – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – whether jury sufficiently directed as to the care to be taken with accomplice’s evidence – whether jury to be warned as to unreliability of witness evidence based purely on his status as accomplice
Criminal Code (Qld), s 632(3) Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) s13A, s188, 188(2)
P J Callaghan for the appellant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Holmes J for the reasons she has given.
MACKENZIE J: I agree with the reasons of Holmes J and with the orders proposed.
HOLMES J: The appellant appealed against his conviction by a jury of one count of arson…
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 Smillie
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Smillie [2002] QCA 341
Case
[2002] QCA 341
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Smillie, the appellant was convicted on one count of arson and one count of fraud, but was acquitted on two other counts of arson and fraud. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory, and that the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittals. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues were whether the verdicts were so unreasonable that they ought not to be allowed to stand, and whether there was a rational basis for the differing verdicts. The court examined the evidence and considered whether the jury had been properly directed on the reliability of the evidence of an accomplice. The court also assessed whether the verdicts on the guilty counts were inconsistent with the acquittals.
The court found that the verdicts were indeed unreasonable and unsatisfactory. The evidence of the accomplice was critical, and the jury had not been sufficiently warned about the unreliability of such evidence. The court held that the jury should have been directed that an accomplice's evidence needed to be treated with particular care, and that it could not stand alone unless corroborated by other evidence. The verdicts on the guilty counts were inconsistent with the acquittals, and there was no rational basis for the differing verdicts.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The convictions and verdicts on counts 3 and 4 were set aside, and verdicts of acquittal were entered on both counts.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed
2. Convictions and verdicts on counts 3 and 4 on indictment set aside and verdicts of acquittal entered