R v Turner - [2021] QCA 270

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turner [2021] QCA 270

PARTIES:

R
v
TURNER, Elizabeth Anne
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 282 of 2020
DC No 83 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 12 November 2020 (Sheridan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 15 September 2021
Date of Publication of Reasons: 7 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Bowskill SJA and Freeburn J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 15 September 2021

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Convictions on Counts 1 – 4 are set aside.

3.   There be a retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant’s son had been charged with committing drug offences and was released on bail – where the appellant’s son failed to report in accordance with his bail conditions and fled the jurisdiction by yacht – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and three counts of giving false testimony in a judicial proceeding associated with assisting her son to purchase the yacht and other acts – whether the learned trial judge in allowing an objection to evidence from the appellant’s daughter-in-law was a wrong decision on a question of law and constituted a miscarriage of justice – whether the evidence was admissible to prove the appellant’s state of mind at the time that she made the statements that were said to constitute perjury and at the time of the purchase of the yacht – whether the proviso to s 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code applies

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1A)

Castle v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 449; [2016] HCA 46, cited
Collins v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 178; [2018] HCA 18, cited
Hofer v The Queen (2021) 95 ALJR 937; [2021] HCA 36, cited
Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7, cited
Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, cited
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, applied

COUNSEL:

S C Holt QC, with A I O’Brien, for the appellant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bosscher Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: A jury found the appellant guilty of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice[1] and three counts of giving false testimony touching a matter in a judicial proceeding.[2]
[1]Section 43(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
[2]Section 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The appellant’s son, Markis Turner, had been charged with committing several serious drug offences. He was released on bail for which the appellant had given a substantial surety. After an indictment had been presented and after a trial…

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 [2021] QCA 270
Case: [2021] QCA 270
Decision Date: 7 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turner, the appellant was found guilty by the County Court of Victoria of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and three counts of giving false testimony in a judicial proceeding. This arose from her actions in assisting her son, who had been charged with drug offences, to flee the jurisdiction by purchasing a yacht for him and other related acts. The appellant appealed against her convictions on the grounds that the trial judge had improperly admitted or rejected evidence, specifically evidence from her daughter-in-law. The appellant argued that this was a wrong decision on a question of law and constituted a miscarriage of justice. The admissibility of the daughter-in-law's evidence was central to proving the appellant's state of mind at the time she made the statements that constituted perjury and at the time of the purchase of the yacht. The appellant contended that the proviso to section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code should apply, allowing the evidence to be considered.

The court was required to decide whether the trial judge's decision to exclude the daughter-in-law's evidence was correct and, if not, whether this error amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the evidence was necessary to demonstrate her state of mind and intent, which were crucial elements of the charges against her. The court considered whether the evidence could be admitted under the proviso to section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code, which provides that evidence of a statement made by a person is admissible if it is relevant to proving the state of mind of the person making the statement. The court needed to determine if the exclusion of this evidence was an error that affected the safety of the appellant's conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence from the daughter-in-law was indeed a wrong decision on a question of law. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant to proving the appellant's state of mind at the relevant times and that its exclusion constituted a miscarriage of justice. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions on Counts 1 to 4 were set aside. The court ordered a retrial of the charges against the appellant. This decision highlights the importance of properly assessing the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, particularly when it pertains to the state of mind of the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 15 September 2021

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Convictions on Counts 1 – 4 are set aside.

3. There be a retrial.

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 Turner [2021] QCA 270
PARTIES:	R v TURNER, Elizabeth Anne (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 282 of 2020 DC No 83 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 12 November 2020 (Sheridan DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 15 September 2021 Date of Publication of Reasons: 7 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 September 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Bowskill SJA and Freeburn J
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 15 September 2021 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Convictions on Counts 1 – 4 are set aside. 3. There be a retrial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant’s son had been charged with committing drug offences and was released on bail – where the appellant’s son failed to report in accordance with his bail conditions and fled the jurisdiction by yacht – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and three counts of giving false testimony in a judicial proceeding associated with assisting her son to purchase the yacht and other acts – whether the learned trial judge in allowing an objection to evidence from the appellant’s daughter-in-law was a wrong decision on a question of law and constituted a miscarriage of justice – whether the evidence was admissible to prove the appellant’s state of mind at the time that she made the statements that were said to constitute perjury and at the time of the purchase of the yacht – whether the proviso to s 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code applies Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1A) Castle v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 449; [2016] HCA 46, cited Collins v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 178; [2018] HCA 18, cited Hofer v The Queen (2021) 95 ALJR 937; [2021] HCA 36, cited Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7, cited Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, cited Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, applied
COUNSEL:	S C Holt QC, with A I O’Brien, for the appellant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bosscher Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent