Taylor v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 2

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v R [2017] NSWCCA 2
Hearing dates: 23 and 24 November 2016
Decision date: 02 February 2017
Before: Basten JA at [1];
R A Hulme J at [117];
Schmidt J at [128]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal against his convictions.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:
APPEAL – criminal – judge alone trial – nature of appeal – constraints on challenges to findings of fact based on credibility assessments – appeal not in nature of rehearing

CRIME – appeal – steal money property of employer – judge alone trial – challenge to admission of evidence – challenge to reasons – whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported on the evidence

EVIDENCE – admissions – responses to questioning by investigator hired by employer of accused – whether investigator an “investigating official” – whether investigator capable of influencing decision to prosecute – Evidence Act 1995, s 85
EVIDENCE – admissions – whether deed by which accused agreed to repay money contained an admission – whether deed admissible – whether letter explaining failure to make repayment under deed admissible
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 156
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 33, 133, 281
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 84, 85, 88, 90, 119, 128, 138, 184; Dictionary
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 155
Cases Cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 3) (2009) 175 FCR 558; [2009] FCA 407
Beale v NSW Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
R v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57;
221 ALR 402 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam John Taylor (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Thangaraj SC/Mr N Simpson (Applicant)
Mr H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
K Sidaway (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent

File Number(s): 2013/372748
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

29 February 2016

Before:

Garling ADCJ

File Number(s):

2013/372748

Judgment

BASTEN JA: Between September 2009 and February 2012 the applicant, Adam John Taylor, was employed as the manager and licensee of the Hurlstone Park Hotel, also known as “Grumpy’s Hotel”. On 4 November 2015 the applicant was convicted of two charges of stealing money from the owner of the hotel, in his capacity as an employee, being offences under s 156 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The amount involved exceeded $500,000, although it was broken down into two separate counts, to reflect two different ways in which the money was taken. These will be explained below.
The applicant was sentenced…

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 Taylor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 2
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 2
Decision Date: 02 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor v The Queen, the appellant was charged with stealing money from his employer. The case was heard by a judge alone in the County Court of Victoria, and the appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant contested the admissibility of certain evidence, arguing that it was inadmissible under sections 85 and 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 and that the verdict was unreasonable. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the evidence was properly admitted and whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence.

The court examined whether the investigator who questioned the appellant was an "investigating official" under section 85 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court found that the investigator was not an official capable of influencing the decision to prosecute and therefore, the admissions made to the investigator were admissible. The court also considered whether the deed by which the appellant agreed to repay the stolen money contained an admission and whether the letter explaining the failure to repay the money was admissible under section 138. The court concluded that the deed contained an admission and that the letter was properly admitted as it did not contain an admission but was relevant to the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was not in the nature of a rehearing and that the trial judge's findings of fact based on credibility assessments were not open to challenge on appeal. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted and that the verdict was not unreasonable or incapable of being supported on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders