R v Vannatter - [1999] QCA 104

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 104
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CA. No. 355 of 1998

Brisbane

[R v Vannatter]

THE QUEEN

JASON ANDREW VANNATTER

(Applicant) Appellant
de Jersey CJ
Davies JA
Pincus JA

Judgment delivered 9 April 1999

Joint reasons for judgment of de Jersey CJ and Davies JA; separate reasons of Pincus JA concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED. CONVICTION SET ASIDE. NEW

TRIAL ORDERED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - inference from silence - appeal against conviction and sentence for wilful damage at night - whether adverse inference inconsistent with right to silence prior to trial - whether failure of trial judge to direct jury - meaning of "silence" - whether judge erred in not allowing evidence for purpose of rebutting allegation of recent invention.
*Glennon v The Queen* (1994) 179 CLR 1 *Petty and Maiden v The Queen* (1991) 173 CLR 95 *Weissensteiner v The Queen* (1993) 178 CLR 217
Counsel:	Mr P A Leask for the applicant/appellant Mr A W Moynihan for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	11 February 1999

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY CJ and DAVIES JA

Judgment delivered 9 April 1999

By Notice of Appeal dated 2 October 1998 the appellant appealed against his conviction on 11 September 1998, after a trial by jury, of wilful damage at night. On the hearing of that appeal the appellant sought to apply for leave to appeal against the sentence which had been imposed on him for that offence which was one of six months imprisonment cumulative upon terms then being served. There being no opposition from the respondent to that application it was granted and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard together with the appeal against conviction.
The appeal against conviction was, after amendment, on two grounds. They were:
3. that his Honour erred in law and in the exercise of his discretion in not allowing the appellant's counsel to lead or tender evidence of the appellant's statement to his solicitors, for the purpose of rebutting an allegation of recent invention by the Crown prosecutor; and

4. that his Honour erred in:
(a) failing to direct the jury in a manner consistent with the need for caution in drawing inferences as to credibility of the appellant from the manner of the conduct of the defence; and
(b) failing to direct the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn from the appellant's silence upon his arrest.

The following facts were undisputed. At about 2.30 am on 11 May 1997 a security officer of the Townsville General Hospital, Rix, received information that a male person was acting suspiciously. When investigating this matter on level 5 of K Block he heard an unusual noise on level 4. He immediately walked to the staircase and proceeded downstairs towards that level. When only four steps above it he observed the appellant coming…

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 Vannatter

Details

AGLC: R v Vannatter [1999] QCA 104
Case: [1999] QCA 104
Decision Date: 9/04/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vannatter involved the defendant appealing against his conviction and sentence for wilful damage at night. The trial judge had convicted the defendant following a trial where the prosecution relied on the defendant's silence at various points, including when he was arrested and during police interviews. The appeal centred around the legal principles governing the use of silence in criminal trials, particularly whether the failure to direct the jury on the implications of the defendant's silence prior to trial constituted a significant error. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's approach to the inference from silence was consistent with the defendant's right to silence and whether the failure to allow evidence aimed at rebutting the allegation of recent invention was appropriate.

The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the right to silence and the admissibility and weight of evidence derived from silence. The court examined whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the implications of the defendant's silence prior to trial and if the judge's omission constituted a material error. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in not allowing evidence that the defence sought to introduce to rebut the prosecution's allegation that the defendant's account was a recent invention. These issues were pivotal in determining the correctness of the conviction and the fairness of the trial process.

The court held that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the implications of the defendant's silence prior to trial was indeed a significant error, as it was inconsistent with the defendant's right to silence. The court found that the trial judge should have provided appropriate direction to the jury regarding the permissible inferences from silence. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge's refusal to admit evidence intended to rebut the allegation of recent invention was not a material error, as the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission. The court concluded that these errors did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial but warranted a review of the sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for a re-sentencing hearing.

Orders