R v Walters - [2007] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walters [2007] QCA 140

PARTIES:

R
v
WALTERS, Piet Cornelius
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 293 of 2006
DC No 338 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Holmes JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and Cullinane J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed
2. Conviction set aside
3. New trial

CATCHWORDS:

JURY – THE JURY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL MATTERS – where a juror became ill – where the juror was separated from the remaining jurors for a period of time – whether the presence of only 11 jurors prejudiced the trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where local media published articles critical of the applicant – where the trial took place notwithstanding potential juror exposure to the adverse media – whether the failure to change the venue was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted of large-scale fraud – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 63
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 53, s 56(1)(b)

R v Chapple [1995] QCA 73, CA No 461 of 1994, 31 March 1995, considered
R v Edwards [2002] QCA 206; [2002] 1 Qd R 203, applied
R v Green [1996] QCA 42, CA No 426 of 1995, 30 January 1996, considered
R v Hutchings [2006] QCA 219, CA No 345 of 2005, 21 June 2006, applied
R v Ollis (1986) 21 A Crim R 256, considered
R v Webber [2000] QCA 316, CA No 436 of 1999, 8 August 2000, considered
R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd R 208, considered
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99, applied

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant
D Adsett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: On 16 September 2006 Mr Walters was convicted by a jury on 13 counts of dishonestly gaining an advantage, and on one count of dishonestly causing a detriment. He was sentenced that same day to eight years imprisonment. He has appealed against the convictions and sought leave to appeal against the sentence.

His appeal against conviction relies on two matters. The first is that the learned trial judge erred in failing to order a change of venue for the trial, away from the Cairns district. The second…

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 Walters

Details

AGLC: R v Walters [2007] QCA 140
Case: [2007] QCA 140
Decision Date: 27 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Walters, the High Court was tasked with reviewing a criminal conviction and sentence. The appellant, Walters, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud on a large scale. The case raised significant issues regarding the trial's integrity and the fairness of the sentence imposed. One major issue was whether the trial was prejudiced when a juror became ill and had to be temporarily separated from the other jurors. Another issue was whether the trial court's decision to proceed with the trial, despite local media publishing articles critical of the appellant, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the potential impact of the ill juror's temporary absence on the trial's fairness. It concluded that the presence of only 11 jurors for a short period did not prejudice the trial, as the jurors were instructed to remain isolated and the trial resumed with all 12 jurors once the ill juror recovered. Regarding the media articles, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately assessed the risk of juror exposure to the adverse publicity and had failed to change the trial venue, which amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court assessed the severity of the sentence in light of the appellant's fraud offences. It found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the appellant's lack of criminal history and other mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The court ordered a new trial to ensure that the appellant received a fair hearing. The manifestly excessive sentence was also quashed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction set aside

3. New trial

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 Walters [2007] QCA 140
PARTIES:	R v WALTERS, Piet Cornelius (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 293 of 2006 DC No 338 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 March 2007
JUDGES:	Jerrard and Holmes JJA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and Cullinane J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Conviction set aside 3. New trial
CATCHWORDS:	JURY – THE JURY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL MATTERS – where a juror became ill – where the juror was separated from the remaining jurors for a period of time – whether the presence of only 11 jurors prejudiced the trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where local media published articles critical of the applicant – where the trial took place notwithstanding potential juror exposure to the adverse media – whether the failure to change the venue was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted of large-scale fraud – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 63 Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 53, s 56(1)(b) R v Chapple [1995] QCA 73, CA No 461 of 1994, 31 March 1995, considered R v Edwards [2002] QCA 206; [2002] 1 Qd R 203, applied R v Green [1996] QCA 42, CA No 426 of 1995, 30 January 1996, considered R v Hutchings [2006] QCA 219, CA No 345 of 2005, 21 June 2006, applied R v Ollis (1986) 21 A Crim R 256, considered R v Webber [2000] QCA 316, CA No 436 of 1999, 8 August 2000, considered R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd R 208, considered Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99, applied
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the appellant D Adsett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent