R v Waine

Case [2005] QCA 312

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Waine [2005] QCA 312

PARTIES:

R
v
WAINE, Patricia Joyce
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 70 of 2005
DC No 364 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.   Appeal against conviction allowed

2.   The appellant's convictions are quashed and the verdicts set aside

3.   There should be a new trial on each count

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - DEFENCE MATTERS - IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF LAW - where the appellant was convicted after trial by jury of six counts of wilful damage - where the wilful damage alleged to have been committed by the appellant involved the
spray-painting of the insignia "AUA" on six huts on Fraser Island that were owned by the Director-General of the Department of the Environment - where the appellant was tried along with two others by the name of Allan and Sempf - where the accused Sempf sought to make out a defence based on an honest claim of right under s 22 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) - where the accused Sempf claimed certain native title rights over the land on behalf of one of the clans of Aboriginal people who had traditionally lived on Fraser Island - where the evidence showed that the appellant had carried out the spray-painting at the direction of the accused Sempf - where the trial judge allowed a defence under s 22 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to be left to the jury in the case of the accused Sempf but not in the case of the appellant - operation of s 22 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) - whether the appellant was entitled to rely on a defence of honest claim of right when it was conceded that the right relied upon with respect to the relevant property was that of the accused Sempf rather than any right particular to the appellant - whether the trial judge should have left a defence under s 22 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to the jury in the case of the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - OTHER CASES - where the Crown Prosecutor cross-examined the appellant at length about whether or not GST was payable on certain permits sold by the appellant as part of her work as a volunteer at a local tourist centre - where appellant's counsel objected to the line of questioning but the trial judge allowed it to continue - whether the issue of whether or not GST was payable on the permits sold by the appellant was relevant to any fact in issue - whether the appellant was…

Continue reading R v Waine

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Waine [2005] QCA 312
Case
[2005] QCA 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Waine, the appellant was convicted after a jury trial of six counts of wilful damage. The wilful damage involved spray-painting the letters "AUA" on six huts on Fraser Island, which were owned by the Director-General of the Department of the Environment. The appellant, along with two others, Allan and Sempf, were tried jointly. Sempf attempted to defend himself by invoking an honest claim of right under section 22 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Sempf argued that he had native title rights over the land on behalf of an Aboriginal clan that traditionally lived on Fraser Island. The evidence indicated that the appellant carried out the spray-painting at Sempf's direction. The trial judge allowed the jury to consider Sempf's defence but not the appellant's.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the appellant could rely on an honest claim of right defence, even though the right claimed was Sempf's rather than the appellant's, and whether the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider this defence for the appellant. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge should have excluded evidence regarding the payment of GST on permits sold by the appellant, which was deemed irrelevant to the case. The court also examined if this evidence prejudiced the appellant's case to the extent that the trial's fairness was compromised.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to rely on an honest claim of right defence as long as the right was genuinely believed to exist, even if it was Sempf's right. The court ruled that the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider this defence for the appellant. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence about GST was irrelevant and prejudicial, impairing the appellant's prospects of acquittal. Consequently, the court quashed the appellant's convictions, set aside the verdicts, and ordered a new trial on each count.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed

2. The appellant's convictions are quashed and the verdicts set aside

3. There should be a new trial on each count

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.