R v Williams - [2014] QCA 114

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams [2014] QCA 114

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, Makehu Michele Barbara
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 57 of 2013
CA No 239 of 2013
DC No 224 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.    Extension of time until 17 September 2013 to apply for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

3.    Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was employed as a bookkeeper – where the appellant was charged with four counts of dishonestly applying funds from her employer for her own use – where Counts 2 and 3 each alleged a circumstance of aggravation being that the dishonestly appropriated property exceeded $30,000 – where the jury were unable to reach a verdict on Count 1, but found the appellant guilty of Count 2 without the circumstance of aggravation and guilty of Counts 3 and 4 as charged – where in a re-direction the trial judge described Count 2 as “an all or nothing” case – where the appellant submitted that the finding of fraud simpliciter on Count 2 meant that the jury had reasonable doubt about the transfers subject to the Counts 3 and 4 and the other amounts in the minority of Count 2 – whether the verdicts on Count 2, 3 and 4 were inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after one half of the sentence is served – where the trial judge sentenced on a factual basis that “the fraud in Count 2 approached, but fell short of $30,000” – where there was no explanation behind this basis – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C, s 671(3)

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 312, cited
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, cited
R v Eveleigh[2009] QCA 257, cited
R v Parker[2007] QCA 22, cited
R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, cited
R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited

COUNSEL:

T Ryan for the appellant/applicant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: On 15…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2014] QCA 114
Case: [2014] QCA 114
Decision Date: 23 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant was a bookkeeper who was convicted of dishonestly applying funds from her employer for her own use on various counts. The jury could not reach a verdict on Count 1, but found the appellant guilty of Count 2 without the circumstance of aggravation, and guilty of Counts 3 and 4 as charged. The trial judge's re-direction described Count 2 as "an all or nothing" case, leading the appellant to argue that the jury's finding of fraud simpliciter on Count 2 indicated reasonable doubt about the transfers subject to Counts 3 and 4, as well as the other amounts in the minority of Count 2. The appellant contended that the verdicts on Counts 2, 3, and 4 were inconsistent.

The court had to determine whether the verdicts on Counts 2, 3, and 4 were inconsistent, given the trial judge's re-direction. The court examined the evidence and the reasoning behind the jury's verdicts, ultimately concluding that there was no inconsistency. The court found that the jury was properly directed and that their verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. However, the leave to appeal against sentence was ultimately refused, as the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Extension of time until 17 September 2013 to apply for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

3. Leave to appeal against sentence 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 Williams [2014] QCA 114
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, Makehu Michele Barbara (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 57 of 2013 CA No 239 of 2013 DC No 224 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Extension of time until 17 September 2013 to apply for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 3. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was employed as a bookkeeper – where the appellant was charged with four counts of dishonestly applying funds from her employer for her own use – where Counts 2 and 3 each alleged a circumstance of aggravation being that the dishonestly appropriated property exceeded $30,000 – where the jury were unable to reach a verdict on Count 1, but found the appellant guilty of Count 2 without the circumstance of aggravation and guilty of Counts 3 and 4 as charged – where in a re-direction the trial judge described Count 2 as “an all or nothing” case – where the appellant submitted that the finding of fraud simpliciter on Count 2 meant that the jury had reasonable doubt about the transfers subject to the Counts 3 and 4 and the other amounts in the minority of Count 2 – whether the verdicts on Count 2, 3 and 4 were inconsistent CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after one half of the sentence is served – where the trial judge sentenced on a factual basis that “the fraud in Count 2 approached, but fell short of $30,000” – where there was no explanation behind this basis – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C, s 671(3) MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 312, cited R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, cited R v Eveleigh[2009] QCA 257, cited R v Parker[2007] QCA 22, cited R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, cited R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited
COUNSEL:	T Ryan for the appellant/applicant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent