Legal Research
Cases
R v Turner (No 15)

R v Turner (No 15)

Case [2001] TASSC 144 18 December 2001

Conspiracy

Unconscionable Conduct

Type to search within this case.

[2001] TASSC 144

CITATION: R v Turner (No 15) [2001] TASSC 144

PARTIES:  R
  v
  TURNER, Phillip Bruce

LEE, Mervyn Robin
JANSE N, Cornelius Marinus
COULSTON, Daren Te Ariki Charles
TEDESCO, Antonio

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  320/2000
DELIVERED ON:  18 December 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  23 July - 8 November 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - General matters - Ancillary liability - Conspiracy - Practice and procedure - Dismissal - Interests of justice - Appropriateness of substantive charges - Delay - Improprieties of public officers.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s86(7).
R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32; Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) v B (1998) 194 CLR 566; R v Dowding [2000] VSC 439, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [96]

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Adjournment, stay of proceedings or order restraining proceedings - Stay of proceedings - Abuse of process - Delay - Improprieties of public officers.

Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [703]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Crown:  M Rozenes QC, K E Read, N Robinson, J Read & I M Arendt
First Accused:  M L Abbott QC & W P Boucaut
Second Accused:  A G Melick SC & B R McTaggart
Third Accused:  P A Dunn QC & J D Edwardson
Fourth Accused:  B J Powell QC & I C Robertson
Fifth Accused:  C J Kourakis QC & J M Fuller

Solicitors:
Crown:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
First Accused:     Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Iles Selley
Second Accused:  Jennings Elliott
Third Accused:    Jennings Elliott as agents for:   John Lister
Fourth Accused: Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Coates PL
Fifth Accused:     Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Lynch & Meyer

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 144
Number of Paragraphs: 74

Serial No 144/2001
File No 320/2000

THE QUEEN v PHILLIP BRUCE TURNER,
MERVYN ROBIN LEE, CORNELIUS MARINUS JANSEN,
DAREN TE ARIKI CHARLES COULSTON
and ANTONIO TEDESCO (No 15)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

18 December 2001

On 29 November 2001, I refused an application for the charge of conspiracy against the five accused to be dismissed or, alternatively, for the proceedings on the indictment to be permanently stayed. These are my reasons for refusing that application.

The application was for the charge to be dismissed pursuant to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s86(7) on the basis that its dismissal was in the interests of justice, or alternatively for the proceedings on the indictment to be stayed permanently to prevent an abuse of process. The accused have been indicted on a single count of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ("AFMA"), an authority under the Commonwealth, contrary to the Crimes Act, s86A, by causing and permitting false returns ("SEF2 forms") to be submitted to AFMA as to orange roughy catches in 1992 and…

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 (No 15)

Details

AGLC: R v Turner (No 15) [2001] TASSC 144
Case: [2001] TASSC 144
Decision Date: 18 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Supreme Court of Tasmania was asked to decide whether to dismiss the conspiracy charge against five accused or permanently stay the proceedings on the indictment. The accused were charged with conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority by causing and permitting false returns to be submitted regarding orange roughy catches in 1992 and 1993. The court was required to decide if dismissing the conspiracy charge or staying the proceedings was in the interests of justice, considering various factors such as the availability of substantive charges, delays in charging the accused, motives of the prosecuting authorities, conduct of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and the seriousness of the charge. The court considered the history and purpose of the relevant legislation, the availability of substantive charges, and the appropriateness of the conspiracy charge in light of the facts alleged. The court also evaluated the impact of delays in charging the accused, the conduct of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and the seriousness of the charge. Ultimately, the court decided that the conspiracy charge should not be dismissed or the proceedings permanently stayed, as the factors in favour of doing so did not outweigh the seriousness of the charge and the need for a fair trial.

Orders