R v Tatnell - [1996] QCA 171

[1996] QCA 171

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS J

CA No 42 of 1996

THE QUEEN

MARIE LORRAINE TATNELL Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/05/96

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS J: The appellant was tried in the District Court at Toowoomba in relation to 11 counts of stealing. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on five of the counts and convicted her on the other six. The appellant has appealed to this Court. The principal ground on which the appeal is based is that there were inconsistencies in the jury verdicts such as would indicate that the jury had compromised their decision leading to the conclusion that the verdicts of guilty are unsafe and unsatisfactory and should be set aside.

The circumstances in relation to the charges were somewhat unusual. The critical Crown witness was a 16 year old girl named Fraser. The Crown case was that Fraser had accompanied the appellant to a number of stores in Toowoomba and Goondiwindi between 6 and 8 April 1994 and that, at the instigation of the appellant, Fraser had assisted in stealing various items the subject matter of the 11 stealing counts.

The learned trial Judge in the body of his summing up gave clear directions as to the role played by Fraser. He indicated that it was for the jury to determine whether or not she was an accomplice but his summing up indicated, reasonably strongly, that the jury should reach such a view. He then gave the jury the appropriate warning that they ought not act on Fraser's evidence as an accomplice in the absence of corroboration.

He then directed the jury's attention to evidence which could amount to corroboration of counts 1 to 8. The jury were told that there was no evidence capable of constituting corroboration with respect to counts 9, 10 and 11 and that undoubtedly explained the jury's verdict of not guilty on those counts.

Throughout the body of his summing up the learned trial Judge told the jury they had to consider each case separately, particularly from the point of view of corroboration. He also correctly informed them that any view as to the facts that he may express in his summing up was not binding on them. He also indicated in the body of his summing up that the jury would remember an aspect of defence counsel's address which related to the deodorant the subject of count 6. The highlighting of that in the summing up indicates that there was a particular matter for the jury to have regard to when they were considering their verdict on count 6. In my view, the body of the summing up is entirely unobjectionable.

When asked whether either counsel sought any redirections, defence counsel asked for a direction, in effect, that there would have to be an identical verdict on counts 1 to 8. As he put it in his request for redirections, "If they found her not guilty of one they would have to find her…

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 Tatnell

Details

AGLC: R v Tatnell [1996] QCA 171
Case: [1996] QCA 171
Decision Date: 21 May 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tatnell was heard in the Court of Appeal, with Fitzgerald P, Davies JA and Williams J presiding. The appellant, Marie Lorraine Tatnell, appealed against her conviction on six counts of stealing. The primary issue was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent to the extent that they were unsafe and unsatisfactory, warranting a setting aside of the guilty verdicts. The appeal hinged on the notion that the jury had compromised their decision-making process, thereby undermining the reliability of their verdicts.

The court examined the role of the Crown's key witness, a 16-year-old named Fraser, who alleged that she accompanied the appellant in committing the thefts. The trial judge had directed the jury to consider whether Fraser was an accomplice and had cautioned them against relying on her testimony without corroboration. Despite these instructions, the trial judge also directed the jury that their verdicts on counts 1 to 8 could only be either guilty on all or not guilty on all, which some argued was a factual direction rather than a legal one. The appellant contended that this direction unduly constrained the jury's discretion and contributed to the inconsistent verdicts.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the verdicts were so inconsistent as to be unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that the appellant needed to show that no reasonable jury could have arrived at the verdicts, which was not established merely by showing that the jury rejected some evidence while accepting other parts of it. The court concluded that the jury had a rational basis for their verdicts, especially considering the specific circumstances of each count, such as the lack of corroboration for some items and the appellant's absence from the store in one instance. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders