R v Stokes - [1993] QCA 467

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 467

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 179 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Stokes, Phillip Reginald]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

PHILLIP REGINALD STOKES

(Appellant)

The Chief Justice
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Lee

Judgment delivered 22nd November, 1993

Separate reasons for judgment by the Chief Justice, Pincus JA and Lee J.

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Extortion - Out of court statements made to undercover agents inconsistent with facts - Judge summing up - directions to jury on facts.

COUNSEL: Mr A. Glynn for the Appellant
Mr B. Campbell for the Respondent

SOLICITORS: Messrs Price and Roobottom for the Appellant
Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 179 of 1993

Brisbane

Before    The Chief Justice
         Mr Justice Pincus
         Mr Justice Lee

[R. v. Stokes]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

PHILLIP REGINALD STOKES
(Appellant)

JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Judgment delivered 22/11/93

I agree with the conclusions of Lee J. that the appeal against conviction in this case should be dismissed and that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused. I am indebted to Lee J. for his full explanation of the evidence and the issues.
No evidence was called by the defence at the trial so the question for the jury was whether the evidence which was presented by the Crown established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's involvement in the offence in the way the Crown alleged. The Crown was obliged to establish to the jury's satisfaction that the appellant made the telephone call in question to the bank manager. I consider that a reasonable jury could on the evidence have decided this question to the appropriate standard adversely to the appellant and further that it should not be concluded that there was anything unsafe or unsatisfactory about the jury's so finding. The appellant's involvement in the manner which the Crown alleged was established by the statements which the Crown witnesses claimed had been made by him. The learned trial judge's summing‑up, although not over full, sufficiently identified and isolated the issues and portions of the evidence which the jury was called on to consider. The summing-up was from this point of view not deficient. There was a need to be sure that the relevant statements were made and that they truly reflected the appellant's involvement in the way alleged by the Crown. These requirements were highlighted by the judge. Notwithstanding the points of variation between the actual circumstances shown to have prevailed in the vicinity of the bank on the day of the offence and portions of the appellant's later statements on those matters there was nothing unreasonable in the jury's conclusion that the appellant had been involved in the way alleged against him.
With respect to the sentence I merely wish to say that the behaviour of the appellant involving…

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 Stokes

Details

AGLC: R v Stokes [1993] QCA 467
Case: [1993] QCA 467
Decision Date: 22 November 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Reginald Stokes was convicted of extortion in the District Court and appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. The appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant was accused of making a phone call to a bank manager, claiming that a bomb had been planted behind the bank and demanding money. The appellant was not implicated in the offence until he made admissions to a police informer and an undercover police officer. The Crown relied on the truth of the admissions made to establish that the appellant had made the relevant phone call to the bank. The primary submission of counsel for the appellant was that there was a substantial and fundamental difference between what was claimed and what was objectively proven about the actual offence. The Court found that there were a number of features described by the appellant which matched the bomb and the circumstances of the phone call, and the jury could properly have had regard to these features. The Court found that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should also be dismissed.

Orders