R v Watkins and Spry - [2014] QDC 277

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Watkins and Spry [2014] QDC 277

PARTIES:

R
(Respondent)

v

DANIEL PATRICK WATKINS
(Applicant)

and

TENNILLE COURTNEY SPRY
(Applicant)

FILE NO.

Townsville DCR 156/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2014

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1 The applications for particulars are granted in respect of each of the applicants, Watkins and Spry.

2 The prosecution is directed to provide proper particulars of the case against each of Watkins and Spry.

3 The balance of the applications of Watkins and Spry respectively are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

4 I give the parties liberty to apply for such further directions as may be required in respect of the balance of the applications.

CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:
CASES:

CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENTS - PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE – ADEQUACY – where both applicants charged with attempts to pervert the course of justice – where evidence against each is a small part of lengthy evidence alleging a course of conduct – where section 7 Criminal Code (Qld) only relied on as party provision – whether particulars provided by prosecution are adequate – where some ambivalence in prosecution case against each applicant – where applicants seek further particularisation of case against each of them.

Sections 4, 140, 573 Criminal Code (Qld);

R v Meisner (1995) 184 CLR 132; Rogerson v R (1992) 107 ALR 225; Tripodi v R [1961] 104 CLR 1; Rogerson v R (1992) 107 ALR 225; R v Trifyllis (1998) QCA 416; R v R [1998] QCA 83; R v Chong [2012] QCA 265.

COUNSEL:

AW Collins for the applicant Watkins
Ms CJ McKinnon for the applicant Spry
J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Arthur Browne & Associates for the applicant Watkins

Anderson Telford lawyers for the applicant Spry
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.

[1] I heard the pre-trial applications together on 23 October 2014. By consent, I have been asked to determine one of the three issues first and discretely, so that Mr Collins (for Watkins) and Ms McKinnon (for Spry) may be better informed as to whether to argue one or other or both or neither of the two parts of the application. This issue is about particulars of the charge as it affects each of the two applicants.

The charge

[2] Watkins and Spry are charged with divers others, with the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. That offence is a discrete and substantive offence: that is, it does not involve the “attempt” provision in section 4 of the Criminal Code (Qld): R v Meisner (1995) 184 CLR 132; Hugo v R [2000] WASCA 199; Rogerson v R (1992) 107 ALR 225.

[3] The charge (section 140 Criminal Code (Qld)) is as follows:

“That between the 27^th day of July, 2012 and the 15^th

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 Watkins and Spry

Details

AGLC: R v Watkins and Spry [2014] QDC 277
Case: [2014] QDC 277
Decision Date: 10 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Watkins and Spry, the applicants sought clarification and further particularisation of the charges against them. Both applicants were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. They argued that the particulars provided by the prosecution were inadequate, particularly in light of the extensive evidence presented against them, which was only a segment of a larger course of conduct. The applicants contended that the prosecution had only relied on section 7 of the Criminal Code (Qld) as a party provision and that there was some ambiguity in the prosecution's case against each of them.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the particulars provided by the prosecution were sufficient to inform the applicants of the specific charges against them. The court had to determine if the applicants had been given enough information to adequately prepare their defence. This involved examining whether the particulars were specific enough to allow the applicants to understand the exact nature of the allegations and the evidence against them, especially given the extensive background evidence presented by the prosecution.

The court concluded that the particulars provided were indeed inadequate and granted the applicants' requests for further particularisation. It found that the prosecution had not sufficiently outlined the specifics of the charges against each applicant. The court ordered that the prosecution provide proper particulars of the case against each applicant. Additionally, the court adjourned the balance of the applications and granted the parties liberty to apply for further directions as necessary.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing clear and specific particulars to defendants to ensure they are aware of the charges and can adequately prepare their defence. The ruling underscored the need for the prosecution to offer detailed information that aligns with the evidence presented, particularly in complex cases with extensive background information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The applications for particulars are granted in respect of each of the applicants, Watkins and Spry.

2 The prosecution is directed to provide proper particulars of the case against each of Watkins and Spry.

3 The balance of the applications of Watkins and Spry respectively are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

4 I give the parties liberty to apply for such further directions as may be required in respect of the balance of the applications.

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 Watkins and Spry [2014] QDC 277
PARTIES:	R (Respondent) v DANIEL PATRICK WATKINS (Applicant) and TENNILLE COURTNEY SPRY (Applicant)
FILE NO.	Townsville DCR 156/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-Trial Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2014
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1 The applications for particulars are granted in respect of each of the applicants, Watkins and Spry. 2 The prosecution is directed to provide proper particulars of the case against each of Watkins and Spry. 3 The balance of the applications of Watkins and Spry respectively are adjourned to a date to be fixed. 4 I give the parties liberty to apply for such further directions as may be required in respect of the balance of the applications.
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: CASES:	CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENTS - PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE – ADEQUACY – where both applicants charged with attempts to pervert the course of justice – where evidence against each is a small part of lengthy evidence alleging a course of conduct – where section 7 Criminal Code (Qld) only relied on as party provision – whether particulars provided by prosecution are adequate – where some ambivalence in prosecution case against each applicant – where applicants seek further particularisation of case against each of them. Sections 4, 140, 573 Criminal Code (Qld); R v Meisner (1995) 184 CLR 132; Rogerson v R (1992) 107 ALR 225; Tripodi v R [1961] 104 CLR 1; Rogerson v R (1992) 107 ALR 225; R v Trifyllis (1998) QCA 416; R v R [1998] QCA 83; R v Chong [2012] QCA 265.
COUNSEL:	AW Collins for the applicant Watkins Ms CJ McKinnon for the applicant Spry J Robson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Arthur Browne & Associates for the applicant Watkins
Anderson Telford lawyers for the applicant Spry Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.