The Queen v Paton - [2021] QDCPR 41

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Paton [2021] QDCPR 41

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(appellant)

v

JAHMAL ANTHONY PATON

(respondent)

FILE NO:

782/21

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 July 2021

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1. I direct that Counts 12, 13 and 14 be severed from the indictment and a separate trial be held on those counts.

2. I otherwise dismiss the application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENTS OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER OF COUNTS – where the defendant is charged with a number of “ram raids” and a burglary- whether the offences are of the same or similar character – whether the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 567, 590AA, 597A

CASES:

Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461, applied
Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4; 225 CLR 303, applied
R v Cogley [1999] VSCA 123, applied
R v Cranston [1988] 1 Qd R 159, applied
R v MAP [2006] QCA 220, applied

COUNSEL:
Ms S Farrelly for the Crown

Mr M Bonasia for the defendant

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is an application pursuant to s 590AA(2)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) by the defence to sever various counts on the indictment and for separate trials.
The charges
The defendant is charged as follows:
(a)Counts 1, 2 and 3 allege what is commonly referred to as a “ram raid” of a Prouds Jewellery store at the Logan Central Plaza on 20 December 2019.
(b)Counts 4, 5 and 6 relate to a ram raid on a Prouds Jewellery store at Runaway Bay Shopping Centre on 4 January 2020.
(c)Counts 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 relate to a ram raid on a Prouds Jewellery store at Pines Shopping Centre on 17 January 2020. Count 9 alleges the use of a black handgun to assault by threat of a security officer and Count 11 is the arson of a car that was used.
(d)Counts 12, 13 and 14 relate to a burglary offence in Brookfield.
(e)Counts 15, 16, 17 and 19 relate to a ram raid at Wallace Bishop and Prouds Jewellery stores at the Toombul Shopping Centre on 25 January 2020.
(f)Count 20 concerns a firearm located by police at the time of the search of the defendant’s hotel room on 25 January 2020.
The facts
In 2019, the Queensland Police Service commenced Operation “Sierra Mudbulls” to investigate ongoing break and enter offences in jewellery stores across shopping centre in south east Queensland and northern New South Wales.
Counts 1 to3 - Offending at Logan Central Plaza
On or about 14 or 15 December 2019 it was reported to police that a blue Kia Sorrento (496YOO) had been stolen from Murwillumbah.…

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 Paton

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Paton [2021] QDCPR 41
Case: [2021] QDCPR 41
Decision Date: 8 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen v Paton, the defendant faces a series of charges related to multiple ram raids and a burglary across various jewellery stores in Queensland. The court is tasked with determining whether certain counts should be severed from the indictment due to the potential prejudicial effect on the defendant if tried together. The charges include several ram raids on Prouds Jewellery stores at Logan Central Plaza, Runaway Bay Shopping Centre, and Pines Shopping Centre, as well as a burglary at Brookfield. The defendant is also charged with the use of a firearm during one of the raids and the arson of a car used in the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the counts should be severed due to the prejudicial effect that trying them together might have on the defendant. The court had to consider whether the offences were of the same or similar character and whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice. This required a detailed analysis of the nature of the offences, the evidence linking the defendant to each offence, and the potential impact of trying the counts together on the fairness of the trial.

The court deliberated on the nature of the offences, noting that they were all related to ram raids and a burglary, which are similar in character. However, the court found that the probative value of trying the counts together was significant in establishing the defendant's criminal enterprise and modus operandi. The court held that the prejudicial effect, if any, was not so substantial as to outweigh the probative value of the evidence when considered in the context of the entire trial. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion to sever the counts.

The court made specific orders regarding the severance of certain counts. It directed that Counts 12, 13, and 14, relating to the burglary in Brookfield, be severed from the indictment and tried separately. This decision was based on the court's finding that these counts, while similar in nature, could be more prejudicial if tried alongside the other ram raid charges. The court otherwise dismissed the application to sever the other counts, allowing them to proceed together in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I direct that Counts 12, 13 and 14 be severed from the indictment and a separate trial be held on those counts.

2. I otherwise dismiss the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

The defendant is charged as follows:(a)Counts 1, 2 and 3 allege what is commonly referred to as a “ram raid” of a Prouds Jewellery store at the Logan Central Plaza on 20 December 2019.(b)Counts 4, 5 and 6 relate to a ram raid on a Prouds Jewellery store at Runaway Bay Shopping Centre on 4 January 2020.(c)Counts 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 relate to a ram raid on a Prouds Jewellery store at Pines Shopping Centre on 17 January 2020. Count 9 alleges the use of a black handgun to assault by threat of a security officer and Count 11 is the arson of a car that was used.(d)Counts 12, 13 and 14 relate to a burglary offence in Brookfield.(e)Counts 15, 16, 17 and 19 relate to a ram raid at Wallace Bishop and Prouds Jewellery stores at the Toombul Shopping Centre on 25 January 2020.(f)Count 20 concerns a firearm located by police at the time of the search of the defendant’s hotel room on 25 January 2020.The facts In 2019, the Queensland Police Service commenced Operation “Sierra Mudbulls” to investigate ongoing break and enter offences in jewellery stores across shopping centre in south east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Counts 1 to3 - Offending at Logan Central Plaza On or about 14 or 15 December 2019 it was reported to police that a blue Kia Sorrento (496YOO) had been stolen from Murwillumbah. It was further reported that a Holden Captiva (CZY04A) had been stolen from Banora Point around 20 December 2019. On 20 December 2019, it is alleged that at about 4.29am the defendant drove the stolen Kia Sorrento bearing false registration plates (305VQL) (Count 1) to the Logan Central Plaza. It is alleged that the defendant and two other offenders ram raided the Prouds Jewellery store (Count 2). CCTV captured the offenders entering the store with gloves and clothing disguising their faces and using tools (an axe and a red glass breaker/torch shaped item) to smash open cabinets and steal items of jewellery (Count 3). After being notified about these offences the police commenced their investigation. On the same day as the offence the Holden Captiva was located in Kelly Avenue, Coomera and the Kia Sorrento was located in Snowden Street, Slacks Creek. CCTV footage obtained from outside the shopping centre showed the two cars driving together at about 4.32am, a few minutes after the offences occurred. Upon locating the Kia Sorrento, a forensic examination was completed and damage to the car was consistent with that being used in the ram raid. It was also identified that false registration plates had been used and the correct registration was 496YOO. Later that day the owner of Mercedes Benz, Mr Long, reported to police that his Mercedes Benz (PSL666) had been stolen. On 25 January 2020, police were notified that the stolen Mercedes Benz was located at the Calamvale Hotel. When police attended the hotel, they located the defendant in one of the hotel rooms. A search of the hotel room was conducted, and jewellery was in multiple bags together with a key for another Mercedes Benz car (186YJF). Police searched the stolen Mercedes Benz car bearing registration plates 023MWO and 023VPA, but the VIN number confirmed the correct registration number PSL666. When police searched the car, they located items of jewellery in the boot of the car. A store manager from Prouds confirmed the jewellery items belonged to various Prouds stores and importantly five of the items located had been stolen from the Logan Central Plaza store the subject of Counts 1, 2 and 3.Counts 4 to 6 – offending at Runaway Bay Shopping Centre

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I therefore decline to exercise my discretion to sever counts 1 to 3. Conclusion In conclusion, I make the following orders in the exercise of my discretion:1. I direct that Counts 12, 13 and 14 be severed from the indictment and a separate trial be held on those counts.2. I otherwise dismiss the application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	The Queen v Paton [2021] QDCPR 41
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (appellant) v JAHMAL ANTHONY PATON (respondent)
FILE NO:	782/21
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 July 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 July 2021
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. I direct that Counts 12, 13 and 14 be severed from the indictment and a separate trial be held on those counts. 2. I otherwise dismiss the application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENTS OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER OF COUNTS – where the defendant is charged with a number of “ram raids” and a burglary- whether the offences are of the same or similar character – whether the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 567, 590AA, 597A
CASES:	Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461, applied Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4; 225 CLR 303, applied R v Cogley [1999] VSCA 123, applied R v Cranston [1988] 1 Qd R 159, applied R v MAP [2006] QCA 220, applied
COUNSEL:	Ms S Farrelly for the Crown Mr M Bonasia for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Howden Saggers Lawyers for the defendant