R v T

Case [1996] QCA 258 6 August 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 258
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 306 of 1995
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Mackenzie J.
[R. v. T]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

T Appellant

FITZGERALD P.
PINCUS J.A.

MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered 06/08/1996

SEPARATE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT,

CONCURRING AS TO THE ORDER MADE.

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:	CONVICTION - arson - 15 year old appellant, 14 years at the time of offending - what was the apellant’s state of mind at the material time - whether it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellant “wilfully” set fire to the shop - whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory because the evidence was insufficient to ground the findings made by the trial judge - the test stated in Lockwood considered - the various meanings attributed to words such as “wilfully”, “likely” and “intentionally” considered - statutory interpretation.
Boughey v. R. (1986) 161 C.L.R. 10 Giorgianni v. R. (1985) 156 C.L.R. 473 Iannella v. French (1967-1968) 119 C.L.R. 84 R. v. Burnell [1966] Qd.R. 348 R. v. Crabbe (1985) 156 C.L.R. 464 R. v. Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 A.C. 455 R. v. Lockwood; ex parte Attorney-General [1981] Qd.R. 209 R. v. Moloney [1985] 1 A.C. 905 R. v. Marshall (1986) 43 S.A.S.R. 448 R. v. Nedrick [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1025 R. v. Webb; ex part Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd.R. 275 Royall v. R. (1990) 172 C.L.R. 378 Vallance v. R. (1961) 108 C.L.R. 56
ss. 23, 29, 302(1)(a), 316, 317, 351, 354, 363, 426(2), 669A and Chapt. 46 of Queensland Criminal Code ss. 13(1), 157(1)(c) Tasmanian Criminal Code ss. 14(1), 14(2), 14A, 14B Acts Interpretation Act 1954 ss. 5, 18(1)(a), 18(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 N.S.W.
Counsel:	Mrs D. Richards for the Appellant J. Costanzo for the Crown
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Date(s) of Hearing:	9 February 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 06/08/1996

The appellant, a 15 year old child who was born on 28 January 1980, has appealed against his conviction of an offence of arson of a shop in the Childrens’ Court (constituted by a Judge of District Courts) at Cairns on 10 July 1995. The fire to which the charge related occurred on 10 May 1994, when the appellant was aged 14 years. Before this Court, it was common ground that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant “wilfully and unlawfully” set fire to the shop (Criminal Code s. 461), and that “he had capacity to know that he ought not to do the act” which constituted the offence (Code s. 29).

On the night in question, the appellant and another boy broke and entered and stole from a Cairns pizza shop, which was later destroyed by fire. The appellant pleaded guilty to breaking, entering and stealing, but not guilty to arson. The fire began in…

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 T

Details

AGLC: R v T [1996] QCA 258
Case: [1996] QCA 258
Decision Date: 6/08/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, who was 14 years old at the time of the offence, was convicted of arson and subsequently appealed the decision. The conviction hinged on the appellant’s state of mind when he allegedly set fire to a shop. The court was tasked with determining whether it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant wilfully set the fire, and if the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory given the evidence presented. The appeal raised issues of statutory interpretation, particularly around the meanings of words such as "wilfully," "likely," and "intentionally."

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge’s findings and if the conviction was therefore unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court examined the test established in Lockwood, which provides criteria for assessing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases. The court considered various definitions of the terms used in the legislation and whether these terms were open to interpretation by the trial judge. It was critical to determine if the trial judge could reasonably have concluded that the appellant acted with the necessary mens rea for the offence of arson.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to find that the appellant acted wilfully in setting the fire. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge’s findings, and thus the conviction was not unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court highlighted that the term “wilfully” could encompass a range of meanings and was appropriately applied in the context of the evidence presented. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The court affirmed the trial judge’s findings that the appellant had wilfully set the fire, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction on the grounds of sufficiency of evidence.

Orders