The Queen v Gore - [2020] QDC 264

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Gore [2020] QDC 264

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

Craig Kirrin Gore

(Defendant)

FILE NO:
2413/18

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Judge alone trial.

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27, 28, 30, 31 July 2020, 4 August 2020.

JUDGE:

Byrne QC DCJ

ORDERS:

Special Verdicts:

Count 11: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charge has not been established on the balance of probabilities. I therefore find the defendant not guilty on count 11.

All other counts: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charges has been established on the balance of probabilities.

General Verdicts:

Count 1: Not guilty

Count 2: Not guilty

Count 3: Guilty

Count 4: Not guilty

Count 5: Not guilty

Count 6: Not guilty

Count 7: Guilty

Count 8: Guilty

Count 9: Guilty

Count 10: Guilty

Count 12: Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where the defendant applied for a judge alone trial under s 614 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – where no jury trial orders were made under s 615 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the accused was tried by a judge sitting without jury.

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –– FRAUD – VERDICT – where the defendant is charged with 11 counts of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and 1 count of fraud – where the defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY –– VERDICT – whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt: that the defendant gained a benefit or advantage for another, that the defendant’s conduct was done dishonestly, that the property subject to the charge was of $30,000 or more (excluding count 8).

CRIMINAL LAW –– JURISDICTION – SPECIAL VERDICT - where issues of jurisdiction arise on all counts, but are specifically raised on counts 10 and 11 – whether proof of jurisdiction is established through section 12 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – whether the prosecution have proven on the balance of probabilities that the alleged offending occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court.

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS –– PROCEDURE – where the defendant has submitted the evidence raises a mistake of fact issue – where the offences are offences relating to property - whether sections 22 and/or 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld) are available in the circumstances of the case.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 12, s 22, s 24, s 408C, s 614, s 615, s 644.

CASES:

Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493.

R v Dillon; ex parte Attorney-General [2016] 1 Qd. R. 56.

Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1.

R v WAF and SBN [2010] 1 Qd. R. 370.

R v Longford (1970)…

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 The Queen v Gore

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Gore [2020] QDC 264
Case: [2020] QDC 264
Decision Date: 27 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was The Queen v Gore, a criminal trial where the defendant was charged with multiple counts of fraud, including 11 counts of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and one count of fraud. The defendant had elected for a judge-alone trial under section 614 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), and as such, the trial was conducted without a jury. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges, setting the stage for a detailed examination of the evidence and legal principles involved.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had gained a benefit or advantage for another, whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest, and whether the property subject to the charges was of $30,000 or more. Additionally, the court needed to address jurisdictional issues, particularly concerning counts 10 and 11, and whether the prosecution had proven on the balance of probabilities that the alleged offending occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court. The court also considered whether sections 22 and 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld) were applicable in light of the defendant's submission that the evidence raised a mistake of fact issue.

In its reasoning, the court found that the jurisdiction for count 11 had not been established on the balance of probabilities, leading to a finding of not guilty on that count. Conversely, for all other counts, the court determined that the jurisdiction had been sufficiently proven. The court then proceeded to deliver special verdicts on the jurisdictional issues and general verdicts on the guilt or innocence of the defendant for each count. The outcomes included not guilty findings on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 11, and guilty findings on counts 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.

Orders

Orders of the court

Special Verdicts:

Count 11: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charge has not been established on the balance of probabilities. I therefore find the defendant not guilty on count 11.

All other counts: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charges has been established on the balance of probabilities.

General Verdicts:

Count 1: Not guilty

Count 2: Not guilty

Count 3: Guilty

Count 4: Not guilty

Count 5: Not guilty

Count 6: Not guilty

Count 7: Guilty

Count 8: Guilty

Count 9: Guilty

Count 10: Guilty

Count 12: Guilty

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:	The Queen v Gore [2020] QDC 264
PARTIES:	The Queen v Craig Kirrin Gore (Defendant)
FILE NO:	2413/18
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Judge alone trial.
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	27 October 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27, 28, 30, 31 July 2020, 4 August 2020.
JUDGE:	Byrne QC DCJ
ORDERS:	Special Verdicts: Count 11: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charge has not been established on the balance of probabilities. I therefore find the defendant not guilty on count 11. All other counts: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charges has been established on the balance of probabilities. General Verdicts: Count 1: Not guilty Count 2: Not guilty Count 3: Guilty Count 4: Not guilty Count 5: Not guilty Count 6: Not guilty Count 7: Guilty Count 8: Guilty Count 9: Guilty Count 10: Guilty Count 12: Guilty
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where the defendant applied for a judge alone trial under s 614 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – where no jury trial orders were made under s 615 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the accused was tried by a judge sitting without jury. CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –– FRAUD – VERDICT – where the defendant is charged with 11 counts of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and 1 count of fraud – where the defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY –– VERDICT – whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt: that the defendant gained a benefit or advantage for another, that the defendant’s conduct was done dishonestly, that the property subject to the charge was of $30,000 or more (excluding count 8). CRIMINAL LAW –– JURISDICTION – SPECIAL VERDICT - where issues of jurisdiction arise on all counts, but are specifically raised on counts 10 and 11 – whether proof of jurisdiction is established through section 12 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – whether the prosecution have proven on the balance of probabilities that the alleged offending occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court. CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS –– PROCEDURE – where the defendant has submitted the evidence raises a mistake of fact issue – where the offences are offences relating to property - whether sections 22 and/or 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld) are available in the circumstances of the case.
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 12, s 22, s 24, s 408C, s 614, s 615, s 644.
CASES:	Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493. R v Dillon; ex parte Attorney-General [2016] 1 Qd. R. 56. Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1. R v WAF and SBN [2010] 1 Qd. R. 370. R v Longford (1970)…