R v Stevens - [2014] QCA 286

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stevens [2014] QCA 286

PARTIES:

R
v
STEVENS, Brett Raymond
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 141 of 2014
DC No 1573 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

The appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where after a trial in the District Court the appellant was found guilty of stealing a bobcat loader – where the bobcat was owned by Nifra Developments Pty Ltd and was stolen on 24 January 2008 – where the appellant purchased the bobcat via an intermediary from one Joey Patten in about mid-2008 – where a valuer, who examined the bobcat, discovered that it was stolen property – where upon finding out the bobcat was stolen, the appellant took steps to return the bobcat to the person he had bought it from and get his money back – whether the appellant had an intention to permanently deprive the owner of its right in the bobcat – whether the verdict was unreasonable as the finding that the conduct alleged involved a fraudulent conversion was not reasonably open on the whole of the evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 391

Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway v MacNicoll (1918) 88 LJKB 601, followed
R v Angus[2000] QCA 29, followed
R v Cushion; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [1999] 1 Qd R 92; [1997] QCA 380, cited
R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64; [2006] QCA 202, applied
R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413, considered

COUNSEL:

K C Fleming QC, with K M Hillard, for the appellant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hannay Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: On 15 May 2014, after a trial in the District Court, the appellant was found guilty on count 3 on a three count indictment, stealing a bobcat loader, the property of Nifra Developments Pty Ltd (“Nifra Developments”) or Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited. The appellant appeals on the ground that:

“… the verdict was unreasonable as the finding that the conduct alleged involved a fraudulent conversion was not reasonably open on the whole of the evidence.”

The evidence before the jury

A bobcat owned by Nifra Developments was stolen on 24 January 2008. The appellant purchased the bobcat via an intermediary, Steven Packman, from one Joey Patten in about mid-2008.

Later in 2008, Scott Bednall, a valuer, who examined the bobcat consequent upon an application for finance made by the appellant, discovered that the bobcat was stolen property. He telephoned the appellant on 15 August 2008 and had a conversation…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2014] QCA 286
Case: [2014] QCA 286
Decision Date: 18 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Stevens, the appellant contested his conviction and sentence following a trial in the District Court, where he was found guilty of stealing a bobcat loader from Nifra Developments Pty Ltd on 24 January 2008. The appellant had purchased the bobcat from Joey Patten around mid-2008 via an intermediary. A valuer who examined the bobcat confirmed it was stolen property. Upon discovering the bobcat was stolen, the appellant attempted to return it to the seller and reclaim his money. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant had the requisite intention to permanently deprive the owner of their right in the bobcat and if the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence.

The court examined whether the finding that the appellant's conduct constituted a fraudulent conversion was reasonably open based on the entire body of evidence. The court noted the appellant's actions after discovering the bobcat was stolen, including his efforts to return the equipment and reclaim his payment. Despite these actions, the court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable and the appellant's appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The reasoning of the court hinged on the interpretation of the appellant's intentions and actions following the discovery that the bobcat was stolen. While the appellant attempted to rectify his mistake by returning the equipment, the court found that his initial purchase and subsequent retention of the bobcat demonstrated an intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Given this interpretation of the evidence, the court upheld the verdict and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed, and no further orders were made beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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 Stevens [2014] QCA 286
PARTIES:	R v STEVENS, Brett Raymond (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 141 of 2014 DC No 1573 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 November 2014
JUDGES:	Muir, Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where after a trial in the District Court the appellant was found guilty of stealing a bobcat loader – where the bobcat was owned by Nifra Developments Pty Ltd and was stolen on 24 January 2008 – where the appellant purchased the bobcat via an intermediary from one Joey Patten in about mid-2008 – where a valuer, who examined the bobcat, discovered that it was stolen property – where upon finding out the bobcat was stolen, the appellant took steps to return the bobcat to the person he had bought it from and get his money back – whether the appellant had an intention to permanently deprive the owner of its right in the bobcat – whether the verdict was unreasonable as the finding that the conduct alleged involved a fraudulent conversion was not reasonably open on the whole of the evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 391 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway v MacNicoll (1918) 88 LJKB 601, followed R v Angus[2000] QCA 29, followed R v Cushion; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [1999] 1 Qd R 92; [1997] QCA 380, cited R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64; [2006] QCA 202, applied R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413, considered
COUNSEL:	K C Fleming QC, with K M Hillard, for the appellant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hannay Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent