SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Young [2020] QCA 3
PARTIES:
R
v
YOUNG, Bradley Wendell
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 237 of 2016
DC No 1503 of 2014DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
Miscellaneous Application - CriminalORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 5 August 2015; Date of Sentence: 12 August 2016 (Farr SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
31 January 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 November 2018
Further written submissions: 12 and 26 February 2019
Further written submissions: 17 October 2019
Further written submissions: 19 and 29 November 2019JUDGES:
Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Mullins AJA
ORDERS:
1. The application to add an additional ground of appeal, as ground 20, is refused.
2. On each count the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
3. Leave is granted to appeal against sentence.
4. Allow the appeal against sentence by varying the non-parole period of 21 months, fixed for counts 2 to 17 and 19 from 21 months to 15 months imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS – FRAUD – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of fraud – where that charge arose from the appellant’s involvement in companies associated with the Kleenmaid white goods business – where the Kleenmaid group urgently needed to raise external finance to remain solvent – where the group restructured itself by dividing into two groups of companies, the Corporate Group and the Orchard Group – where Corporate Group companies conducted the core white goods business with a license to use the Kleenmaid trademark from an Orchard Group company – where the Orchard Group was encumbered by a significant portion of the pre-restructure debt – where the charge alleged that the appellant dishonestly gained a benefit for EDIS, a Corporate Group company – where that benefit was alleged to be loan facilities from Westpac totalling $13 million – where the dishonesty was alleged to be, in essence, misleading Westpac about the effect of the restructure – where it was alleged that Westpac was made to understand that Corporate Group companies would conduct their businesses independently and at arm’s length from the Orchard Group when in fact there was an arrangement by which an Orchard Group company would receive deposits until items were delivered – where that arrangement was said to deny EDIS cash flow and make them prone to any misfortune that befell the Orchard Group – where the appellant at trial was said to have acted dishonestly in the commission of the offence because he attended meetings with Westpac about the proposed loan facilities, was involved in the preparation of documents relied on by Westpac in their decision to approve the facilities, signed the letter of offer, and approved the terms of a letter said to show the concealing of the arrangement between the groups – where the appellant’s case at trial was that the groups did trade at arm’s length, that…
Continue reading R v Young
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Young [2020] QCA 3
- Case
- [2020] QCA 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the jury was required to accept exculpatory testimony, whether the verdict on the fraud count was unreasonable, and if the change in the prosecution’s case regarding the basis of criminal responsibility caused a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court considered whether the lack of directions as to the locality of the offences, the judge's expansion of the particulars of the count, and the adequacy of the jury's directions on the element of insolvency constituted errors. The court also examined whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to expert evidence and whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable based on the evidence.
The court concluded that the jury was not obliged to accept exculpatory testimony and that the verdict on the fraud count was not unreasonable. It was determined that the change in the prosecution's case did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's directions on the locality of the offences and the expansion of the particulars did not lead to an unjust outcome. The court found that the trial judge’s directions on the element of insolvency were adequate, and there was no miscarriage of justice due to expert evidence. The court also held that it was open to the jury to conclude that EDIS was insolvent, that the appellant suspected it was insolvent, and that his failure to prevent EDIS from incurring debts was dishonest.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed on all counts, and the application to add an additional ground of appeal was refused. However, leave was granted to appeal against the sentence. The court varied the non-parole period of 21 months, fixed for counts 2 to 17 and 19 from 21 months to 15 months imprisonment, finding the original sentence to be manifestly excessive.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application to add an additional ground of appeal, as ground 20, is refused.
2. On each count the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
3. Leave is granted to appeal against sentence.
4. Allow the appeal against sentence by varying the non-parole period of 21 months, fixed for counts 2 to 17 and 19 from 21 months to 15 months 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.