R v Smith - [2002] QCA 528

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2002] QCA 528

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Leonard John Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 355 of 2001
DC No 542 of 2001
DC No 523 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

6 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – FALSE PRETENCES AND OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS – FALSE PRETENCE OR PROMISE – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – where appellant represented to each investor that there was an institution known as the British Marine Bank which was material to the investment –– where a jury was entitled to conclude upon the evidence that the appellant did not hold an honest belief that the bank was registered and operating in Australia and that insufficient inquiries were made about the existence of the bank and that the professed belief of the appellant was not reasonably founded – whether the appellant had an intent to defraud on each material occasion and the appellant’s state of mind at the time of each of the relevant transactions - whether verdict of jury unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - whether learned trial judge erred in his summing up in directing the jury where the telling of lies could be an indication of guilt following Edwards v The Queen

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether learned trial judge erred in allowing the trial to proceed where one witness may have given inconsistent evidence to that given in the trial of a co-offender and one witness gave an incorrect date

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – OTHER IRREGULARITIES - whether the state of the appellant’s health during the trial prevented him from having a fair trial

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - whether verdict should be set aside because counsel had allegedly acted contrary to written instructions with particular regard to the cross-examination of investors

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2002] QCA 528
Case: [2002] QCA 528
Decision Date: 6 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for various property offences, including false pretences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had to determine if the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory and if the trial process was fair. The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury, improperly admitted or rejected evidence, and that his health issues during the trial impeded his right to a fair trial. Additionally, the appellant's legal counsel contended that they acted contrary to written instructions during the trial, which allegedly affected the outcome. Finally, the appellant challenged the severity of his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was tainted by misdirection or improper evidence, and if the trial process was fair considering the appellant's health and the conduct of his legal representation. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature and extent of the fraud. The court examined the summing up by the trial judge, the admissibility and consistency of witness testimonies, and the overall fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the significant amount of money involved and the seriousness of the appellant's dishonest conduct.

In its reasoning, the High Court found that the trial judge's summing up did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to reach a verdict. The court held that any inconsistencies in witness testimonies or errors in dates did not undermine the trial's fairness or the verdict's reliability. Additionally, the appellant's health issues did not prevent a fair trial, and the conduct of his legal counsel did not adversely affect the trial's outcome. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that a five-year imprisonment term for the false pretence charges, along with one year for other charges, was within the appropriate range given the scale of the fraud and the appellant's dishonest conduct.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the trial was conducted fairly, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision and confirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Smith [2002] QCA 528
PARTIES:	R v SMITH, Leonard John Thomas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 355 of 2001 DC No 542 of 2001 DC No 523 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	6 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 November 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – FALSE PRETENCES AND OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS – FALSE PRETENCE OR PROMISE – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – where appellant represented to each investor that there was an institution known as the British Marine Bank which was material to the investment –– where a jury was entitled to conclude upon the evidence that the appellant did not hold an honest belief that the bank was registered and operating in Australia and that insufficient inquiries were made about the existence of the bank and that the professed belief of the appellant was not reasonably founded – whether the appellant had an intent to defraud on each material occasion and the appellant’s state of mind at the time of each of the relevant transactions - whether verdict of jury unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - whether learned trial judge erred in his summing up in directing the jury where the telling of lies could be an indication of guilt following Edwards v The Queen CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether learned trial judge erred in allowing the trial to proceed where one witness may have given inconsistent evidence to that given in the trial of a co-offender and one witness gave an incorrect date CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – OTHER IRREGULARITIES - whether the state of the appellant’s health during the trial prevented him from having a fair trial CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - whether verdict should be set aside because counsel had allegedly acted contrary to written instructions with particular regard to the cross-examination of investors CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND…