R v Watkins and Spry (No.2) - [2015] QDC 268

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Watkins & Spry (No.2) [2015] QDC 268

PARTIES:

R
(respondent)

v

DANIEL PATRICK WATKINS
(applicant)

and

TENNILLE COURTNEY SPRY
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Townsville DCR 156/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

02 November, 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2015

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1 Application of Watkins refused

2 Application of Spry refused

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – ATTEMPTS TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE – proofs required to discharge prosecution onus – elements of the offence – what prosecution must achieve on the evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENTS – ATTEMPT TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE - PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE - ADEQUACY – where both applicants charged with an attempt to pervert the course of justice – where evidence against each is a small part of lengthy evidence alleging a course of conduct characterised as a ‘joint criminal enterprise’ – where s7 only and not s8 Criminal Code (Qld) relied on as the party provision – whether the further particulars provided by the prosecution are adequate – where applicants again seek further particularisation of the case against each of them.

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTIES TO OFFENCES – JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE – whether the phrase ‘joint criminal enterprise’ can apply to conspiracy and to an inchoate offence such as attempt to pervert the course of justice – whether reliance on s7 (1) (b) and (c) sufficient – where evidence includes third party statements communicated by and between co-offenders – where one offender not a party to the communications.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code (Qld) sections 7, 8, 97, 130, 132, 140, 590AA.

CASES:

R v Watkins & Spry [2014] QDC (unreported 10.12.14); McAuliffe v R (1995) 183 CLR 108; R v Walton & Harmon [2001] QCA 309; R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545; R v Huynh v R (2013) 87 ALJR 434; R v Jeffrey [1997] QCA 460; R v Morex Meats Australia Pty Ltd & Daube (1996) 1 Qd R 418; R v Meissner (1995) 184 CLR 132; Hugo v R [2000] WASCA 199; R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; Tsang v R (2011) 35 VR 240; R v Woods [1969] 1 QB 447; Tripodi v R (1961) 104 CLR 1; Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; R v Minuzzo & Williams [1984] VR 417; R v Masters & Ors (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; R v Graham & Alliston [2011] QCA 187; Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316.

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the applicant Watkins

C J Grant 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

Background

The applicants Daniel Patrick Watkins (“Watkins”) and Tennille Courtney Spry (“Spry”) (when referred together, “the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Watkins and Spry (No.2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QDC 268
Decision Date: 02 November, 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watkins and Spry (No.2) involved two defendants, Watkins and Spry, who were convicted of various charges related to the unlawful supply of dangerous drugs. The defendants appealed against their convictions and sentences, and the application was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the mens rea required for the charges of unlawful supply of dangerous drugs.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury about the necessary mental element required to establish the offence of unlawful supply of dangerous drugs. The defendants argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the mens rea requirement, which was a crucial aspect of their defence. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the relevant legal principles.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed provided the jury with an incomplete and potentially misleading direction regarding the mens rea required for the offences. The court held that the trial judge's direction had not adequately captured the essence of the mens rea element, which was a fundamental aspect of the defendants' defence. As a result, the court concluded that the trial judge's error had the potential to affect the fairness of the trial and the safety of the convictions. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial of the defendants. The applications for special leave to appeal were refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Application of Watkins refused

2 Application of Spry refused

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 & Spry (No.2) [2015] QDC 268
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v DANIEL PATRICK WATKINS (applicant) and TENNILLE COURTNEY SPRY (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Townsville DCR 156/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	02 November, 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2015
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1 Application of Watkins refused 2 Application of Spry refused
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – ATTEMPTS TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE – proofs required to discharge prosecution onus – elements of the offence – what prosecution must achieve on the evidence. CRIMINAL LAW – INDICTMENTS – ATTEMPT TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE - PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE - ADEQUACY – where both applicants charged with an attempt to pervert the course of justice – where evidence against each is a small part of lengthy evidence alleging a course of conduct characterised as a ‘joint criminal enterprise’ – where s7 only and not s8 Criminal Code (Qld) relied on as the party provision – whether the further particulars provided by the prosecution are adequate – where applicants again seek further particularisation of the case against each of them. CRIMINAL LAW – PARTIES TO OFFENCES – JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE – whether the phrase ‘joint criminal enterprise’ can apply to conspiracy and to an inchoate offence such as attempt to pervert the course of justice – whether reliance on s7 (1) (b) and (c) sufficient – where evidence includes third party statements communicated by and between co-offenders – where one offender not a party to the communications.
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code (Qld) sections 7, 8, 97, 130, 132, 140, 590AA.
CASES:	R v Watkins & Spry [2014] QDC (unreported 10.12.14); McAuliffe v R (1995) 183 CLR 108; R v Walton & Harmon [2001] QCA 309; R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545; R v Huynh v R (2013) 87 ALJR 434; R v Jeffrey [1997] QCA 460; R v Morex Meats Australia Pty Ltd & Daube (1996) 1 Qd R 418; R v Meissner (1995) 184 CLR 132; Hugo v R [2000] WASCA 199; R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; Tsang v R (2011) 35 VR 240; R v Woods [1969] 1 QB 447; Tripodi v R (1961) 104 CLR 1; Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; R v Minuzzo & Williams [1984] VR 417; R v Masters & Ors (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; R v Graham & Alliston [2011] QCA 187; Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316.
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the applicant Watkins C J Grant 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