The Queen v Walker - [1987] TASSC 38

TASSC A31/1987

CITATION: The Queen v Walker [1987] TASSC 38; A31/1987

PARTIES:  THE QUEEN
  v
  WALKER

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:
FILE NO/S:  C253/1986
DELIVERED ON:  22 June 1987
DELIVERED AT:
HEARING DATE:
JUDGMENT OF:  Neasey J

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:
             Respondent:
Solicitors:
             Applicant:
             Respondent:

Judgment Number: TASSC A31/1987
Number of paragraphs: 26

Serial No A31/1987
File No C253/1986

THE QUEEN v WALKER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NEASEY J
22 June 1987

Mrs Pauline Kaye Walker was charged on indictment with having instigated commission of the crime of arson, contrary to ss3 and 268 of the Criminal Code. She was tried in the Criminal Court at Launceston in May 1987, and was acquitted by the jury. She now applies for costs, pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1976. I refer to introductory observations which I made in The Queen v Powell, unreported, TASSC 31/1985, about this Act and the power given under s4 thereof to award costs to persons who have been charged with an offence and have been acquitted or discharged, or in respect of whom the complaint has been dismissed or withdrawn. I need not repeat those observations The court is required by s4(2) to have regard to all relevant circumstances, and in particular to certain specified circumstances.

A brief summary of the facts of the case is as follows The particulars of the charge were that the applicant in August 1986 instigated one Shane Rawlinson to commit the crime of unlawfully setting fire to a shop situated at Rossarden in Tasmania, and that having been so instigated, Rawlinson did set fire to that building in the early hours of 30 August 1986.

The building in question was owned by a company called Clerestory Pty Ltd, which owns a number of properties throughout Tasmania on a trustee basis for various specific clients The particular property was apparently an old tin–roofed house or set of rooms used as a "Four–Square" store, with some accommodation rooms attached. The applicant, Mrs Walker, and her husband had been the lessees of the store for about two years and four months at the time of the fire, and they had built up a successful business there. However, Mr Walker some five months earlier had ceased living at Rossarden and had returned to live at Launceston, where the couple owned other property, and had resumed work as a security guard at industrial premises at George Town. Mrs Walker was anxious to return to live at Launceston with her husband and children as soon as they were able to dispose of their businesses at Rossarden.

The Walkers were interested in other property at Rossarden beside the store which was burnt down. They owned a service station and roadhouse premises a short distance away, and also owned in the same general area an old house which they rented out. Other premises owned or occupied by the Walkers elsewhere included a take–away shop at Exeter, three flats and a shop at…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Walker [1987] TASSC 38
Case: [1987] TASSC 38
Decision Date: 22 June 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Walker concerns the conviction and subsequent acquittal of Mrs Pauline Kaye Walker, who was charged with instigating the arson of her store in Rossarden, Tasmania. The crux of the case rested on the alleged oral admissions made by Mrs Walker to the police officers, Detective Sergeant Michael Brazendale and Detective First Class Constable Bert Hinds, that she had instigated the arson to collect insurance. The jury acquitted Mrs Walker, and she now applies for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1976. The legal issues before the court include whether proper steps were taken to investigate the matter, whether the investigation was conducted in a reasonable and proper manner, and whether the applicant established that she was not guilty. The court found that the police officers failed to investigate the possibility of financial gain or other motives for the alleged crime, and that this failure was a significant oversight. The court also noted that the jury was not convinced of the police officers' evidence and that the applicant had established a case for costs. Consequently, the court ordered that Mrs Walker be paid the taxed costs of her defence.

Orders