Criminal Code - Secret commissions - Source of provisions as bearing on construction - Meaning of "corruptly" - Whether absence of knowledge or assent by the principal is required - Discussion of principles relating to a Crown appeal against a directed verdict of acquittal

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 409, s 529, s 530, s 543, s 688(2)(b), s 690(3)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

CCA 2 of 2001

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr K M Tavener
Respondent: Mr A O Karstaedt

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Karp Steedman Ross-Adjie

CCA 3 of 2001

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr K M Tavener
Respondent: Mr R J Burbidge QC & Mr N D Pope

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Gadens

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) BC 9801616
C v Johnson [1967] SASR 279
Ex parte Gobbert; re Wilks (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 140
Jamieson (1987) 34 A Crim R 308
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
R v Dillon and Riach [1982] VR 434
R v Gallagher [1986] VR 219
R v Gross [1946] OR 1
R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21
Rex v Scott [1907] VLR 471
Rex v Stevenson [1907] VLR 475
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1
Short v FW Hercus Pty Limited (1993) 40 FCR 511
Willers (1995) 81 A Crim R 219

Case(s) also cited:

Ibbs v The Queen [2001] WASCA 129
Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56

MALCOLM CJ: This was an appeal by the Crown under s 688(2)(b) of the Criminal Code which provides that:
"An appeal may be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the part of the prosecution -
…
(b)against any verdict of acquittal on an indictment and any judgment founded thereon when such verdict has been found by direction of the judge or other authority entitled to give directions on law to the jury at the trial."
In this context, s 690(3) of the Code also provides that:
"On any appeal against an acquittal by direction … the Court, if it allows the appeal, may reverse any judgment, decision, or verdict, the correctness of which was in question in the appeal, and may order a new trial or that the accused shall stand his trial as the case may require."
The facts and circumstances are fully set out in the reasons to be published by Burchett AUJ. I agree with his Honour, for the reasons he has stated, that both of the Crown appeals should be dismissed. I also…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2001] WASCA 344
Case: [2001] WASCA 344
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turner, the appellant was convicted of receiving secret commissions in relation to his role as a police officer. The dispute was between the appellant, who was the respondent in the trial court, and the Crown. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict of acquittal in relation to one of the counts of the indictment. The Crown, in turn, appealed against the directed verdict of acquittal in relation to the same count.

The central legal issue was the interpretation of the term "corruptly" in the context of receiving secret commissions. The court had to determine whether the absence of knowledge or assent by the principal was required for such a conviction. The court also considered the principles relating to a Crown appeal against a directed verdict of acquittal. The court found that the term "corruptly" required a subjective mens rea, which included the absence of knowledge or assent by the principal. The court held that the Crown's appeal against the directed verdict of acquittal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.

The High Court held that the term "corruptly" in the context of receiving secret commissions required a subjective mens rea, which included the absence of knowledge or assent by the principal. The court held that the Crown's appeal against the directed verdict of acquittal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial. The court also considered the principles relating to a Crown appeal against a directed verdict of acquittal and found that the trial judge had erred in directing a verdict of acquittal in relation to one of the counts of the indictment. The court held that the principles relating to a Crown appeal against a directed verdict of acquittal were correctly applied in this case.

The final orders of the court were that the Crown's appeal against the directed verdict of acquittal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial. The court held that the term "corruptly" in the context of receiving secret commissions required a subjective mens rea, which included the absence of knowledge or assent by the principal. The court also held that the principles relating to a Crown appeal against a directed verdict of acquittal were correctly applied in this case. The appellant's conviction on the other counts of the indictment was upheld.

Orders