R v Williams - [1999] QCA 324

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 324
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CA No 154 of 1999

Brisbane
[R v Williams]

THE QUEEN

BRETT MICHAEL WILLIAMS

(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 20 August 1999.
Judgment of the Court.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - convictions of burglary - whether police investigation inadequate - failure of police to tape-record alleged admissions by accused near scene - undesirability of such practice where mechanical recording readily available - whether trial judge should have given general warning to jury on this point - whether accused deprived of fair trial.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - use to be made of lies told by accused - role of trial judge where prosecution has addressed jury on the basis that alleged lies by accused have an incriminatory effect - whether overall the accused was deprived of a fair trial.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES - trial procedure - mode of address to accused during trial - undesirability of addressing accused person by status rather than by name - risk of unfairness through direct address as "prisoner", "accused" or by surname alone.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON - APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - serious and audacious examples of burglary - risk of personal confrontation and conflict with occupants of units - application dismissed.
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 applied
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 applied
McKinney & Judge v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468 applied
Penney v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 605, (1998) 72 ALJR 1316
considered
Counsel: Mr P Feeney for the applicant/appellant.
Mr M Byrne QC for the respondent.
Solicitors: Bennett & Associates for the applicant/appellant.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date: 14 July 1999.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 20 August 1999

This is an appeal against conviction upon three counts of burglary and two of stealing. It was alleged that the appellant committed these offences in the early hours of 11 November 1997 in a high-rise apartment building called Zenith in Surfers Paradise.
The only ground of appeal is in these terms - "The trial of the appellant was not fair, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice, in that the summing-up was not balanced and directions on issues of identification, disputed admissions to police, and lies were not adequate".
As we understand the argument of Mr Feeney who appeared for the appellant, it is not suggested that any particular point raised by him is of sufficient moment to carry the appeal to success. He submits however that upon the combination of all points raised by him this Court will reach the conclusion that the appellant did not have a fair trial. Mr Feeney'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 [1999] QCA 324
Case: [1999] QCA 324
Decision Date: 20/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in this case were charged with two counts of burglary. The crux of the dispute was whether the police investigation was inadequate due to the failure to tape-record alleged admissions made by the accused near the scene of the crime. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether the police investigation was inadequate, and if the failure to record the alleged admissions deprived the accused of a fair trial. Additionally, the court examined the desirability of using mechanical recording when it was readily available and whether the trial judge should have provided a general warning to the jury regarding the importance of such recordings.

In its reasoning, the court held that the failure of the police to record the accused's alleged admissions did not render the investigation inadequate, nor did it deprive the accused of a fair trial. The court further determined that while the use of mechanical recording was desirable when readily available, the trial judge was not obliged to give a general warning to the jury on this point. The High Court ultimately upheld the convictions, finding no grounds for overturning the trial decision.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the convictions of the defendants on the counts of burglary, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The court found no merit in the argument that the failure to record the alleged admissions had prejudiced the fairness of the trial.

Orders