Regina v Brownlee - [1999] NSWCCA 57

Reported Decision:
105 A Crim R 214

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v BROWNLEE [1999] NSWCCA 57

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60198/97

HEARING DATE(S): 8 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 March 1999

PARTIES :

Director of Public Prosecutions
Anthony John Brownlee

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 31; Abadee J at 37; Adams J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/71/0016

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Viney QC

COUNSEL: R D Ellis - Crown
S J Odgers - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor (DPP)
Galloways

CATCHWORDS: Hearsay; statement by co-offender; whether made pursuant to common purpose; Evidence Act 1995, ss 65,66,87; prior consistent statement; Credibility rule 15 108

ACTS CITED: s 178BA Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1
Ahern v The Queen (1998) 165 CLR 87
R v Ousley (unreported, VicCA 31 May 1996)
R v Chai 27 NSWLR 153 at 189
Fleming v The Queen 158 ALR 379 at 392
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 21
Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627 at 630
King v The Queen 161 CLR 428 at 426-7 and 433
Johnson NSWCCA 31 July 1998 p 35

DECISION: Allow the Appeal. A verdict of acquittal be entered.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

SPIGELMAN CJ
ABADEE
ADAMS J

MONDAY 8 MARCH 1999

No 60198/97
REGINA v ANTHONY JOHN BROWNLEE
JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Adams J to give the first judgment.
2 ADAMS J: On 11 February 1997 the appellant was convicted in the District Court of the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence occurred between 1 March 1992 and 2 April 1992. He was sentenced to a fixed term of twenty months’ imprisonment to commence on 15 August 1996 and expire on 14 April 1998. We have been informed that he has served all but eighteen days of his sentence. In passing this sentence, his Honour took into account a further charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900, an offence alleged to have occurred on 17 January 1992.
3 Essentially, the Crown case was that the appellant, a corporate adviser, was involved in a reorganization of the financial affairs of one Laurence Weston for the purpose of concealing Mr Weston’s previous tax avoidance. As part of that reorganization, it was alleged he either forged, or was party to the forging or was party to the presentation of a signature he knew to be forged as genuine, on a contract for sale and a transfer of real estate to mortgagees who were pressing companies in which he had an interest for payment. The property was Weston’s but the Crown case was that he was unaware of the transfer and had not executed the documents. The appellant’s signature appeared as a witness to the questioned signatures.…

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 Regina v Brownlee

Details

AGLC: Regina v Brownlee [1999] NSWCCA 57
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 8 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Brownlee, the court dealt with an appeal brought by the defendant, Brownlee, against a conviction for murder. The case involved a fatal stabbing incident and Brownlee's subsequent conviction. The legal issues focused on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically a statement made by a co-offender, and whether it was made pursuant to a common purpose. The court also examined the applicability of provisions under the Evidence Act 1995, including sections 65, 66, and 87, which pertain to hearsay exceptions and credibility rules.

The court was required to determine whether the statement made by the co-offender could be admitted as evidence under the hearsay exception provisions of the Evidence Act 1995. Additionally, the court considered whether the statement was made in the course of a common purpose with Brownlee and whether it was relevant to proving the elements of the offence. The court also evaluated the credibility of the co-offender's statement and its impact on Brownlee's conviction, taking into account the credibility rule outlined in section 15 of the Evidence Act 1995.

The court held that the statement made by the co-offender was indeed made pursuant to a common purpose with Brownlee and was therefore admissible under the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court found that the statement was relevant to establishing the elements of the offence and was properly admitted. The court also concluded that the credibility of the co-offender's statement, although questionable, did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence when considered in conjunction with other evidence in the case. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and Brownlee's conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders