R v Williams - [2000] QCA 409

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Williams [2000] QCA 409

PARTIES: R
v
WILLIAMS, Craig James
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 12 of 2000
CA No 77 of 2000
DC No 806 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 6 October 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 31 July 2000

JUDGES: Davies and McPherson JJA and Ambrose J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Application for leave the appeal against sentence granted. Appeal against sentence allowed. Set aside sentence imposed and impose in lieu a sentence of four years imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appellant charged on 12 counts consisting of six counts of stealing and six counts of receiving in the alternative – appellant found guilty of two counts of stealing and jury gave the special finding pursuant to s 568(8) Criminal Code in respect of four counts – where appellant's co-offender gave recorded statement to police incriminating the appellant in the offences – where prosecutor called co-offender as a witness notwithstanding that he was unwilling to testify – learned trial judge designated the co-offender as adverse and gave the prosecutor leave to prove that he had made a statement inconsistent with the present testimony pursuant to s 17 Evidence Act 1977 – whether allowing the prosecution to call a witness known to be adverse with the motive of attaining otherwise inadmissible evidence is permissible – whether the learned trial judge should have exercised his discretion to exclude the evidence because of its prejudicial effect – whether testimony given by witness was inconsistent with the recorded statement – whether witness should have been cross-examined before the jury in respect of the inconsistent statement

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – VERDICT – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTION TO JURY – on four counts the jury found that the appellant was guilty of stealing or receiving but unable to decide which – where the maximum penalties for stealing and receiving are the same – consideration of the proper form of verdict for special findings under s 568(8) Criminal Code – whether the subsection is internally inconsistent – whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to comply with s 568(8) Criminal Code

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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – whether sentence lacked parity with that imposed on co-offender – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 121
Criminal Code (Qld), s 568(6), s 568(8), s 631A, s 632A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 17, s…

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 [2000] QCA 409
Case: [2000] QCA 409
Decision Date: 6 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Williams, appealed against both his conviction and sentence following his conviction on two counts of stealing, with the jury finding him guilty on four counts of either stealing or receiving pursuant to s 568(8) Criminal Code. The appeal raised issues concerning the admission of evidence from an adverse witness, the form of the verdict for the special findings, and the sentence imposed. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge should have excluded evidence from a witness who was known to be adverse and whether the evidence was prejudicial. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge erred in the form of the verdict given to the jury and whether the sentence imposed was excessive and lacked parity with that of the co-offender.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the prosecution to call the adverse witness and that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial. The court found that the witness's testimony was not inconsistent with the recorded statement, and thus the issue of cross-examining the witness on the recorded statement was not material. Regarding the verdict, the court held that s 568(8) Criminal Code was not internally inconsistent and that the trial judge did not err in the form of the verdict. However, concerning the sentence, the court found that it lacked parity with the sentence imposed on the co-offender and was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Application for leave the appeal against sentence granted. Appeal against sentence allowed. Set aside sentence imposed and impose in lieu a sentence of four years imprisonment.

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 [2000] QCA 409
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, Craig James (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 12 of 2000 CA No 77 of 2000 DC No 806 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 July 2000
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Ambrose J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave the appeal against sentence granted. Appeal against sentence allowed. Set aside sentence imposed and impose in lieu a sentence of four years imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appellant charged on 12 counts consisting of six counts of stealing and six counts of receiving in the alternative – appellant found guilty of two counts of stealing and jury gave the special finding pursuant to s 568(8) Criminal Code in respect of four counts – where appellant's co-offender gave recorded statement to police incriminating the appellant in the offences – where prosecutor called co-offender as a witness notwithstanding that he was unwilling to testify – learned trial judge designated the co-offender as adverse and gave the prosecutor leave to prove that he had made a statement inconsistent with the present testimony pursuant to s 17 Evidence Act 1977 – whether allowing the prosecution to call a witness known to be adverse with the motive of attaining otherwise inadmissible evidence is permissible – whether the learned trial judge should have exercised his discretion to exclude the evidence because of its prejudicial effect – whether testimony given by witness was inconsistent with the recorded statement – whether witness should have been cross-examined before the jury in respect of the inconsistent statement CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – VERDICT – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTION TO JURY – on four counts the jury found that the appellant was guilty of stealing or receiving but unable to decide which – where the maximum penalties for stealing and receiving are the same – consideration of the proper form of verdict for special findings under s 568(8) Criminal Code – whether the subsection is internally inconsistent – whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to comply with s 568(8) Criminal Code 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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – whether sentence lacked parity with that imposed on co-offender – whether sentence was manifestly excessive Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 121 Criminal Code (Qld), s 568(6), s 568(8), s 631A, s 632A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 17, s…