Criminal Law—Evidence—Admissibility—Identity of accused with crime charged—Proof—Safes blown open—Evidence of possession and purpose of use of safe kit containing tools for drilling blowing and picking locks—Evidence of previous safebreaking.

Decisions

May 3.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
BARWICK C.J. AND MENZIES J. Thompson and Wran were on 25th November 1965 convicted in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on two counts of breaking, entering and stealing, and were sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years upon each count, the sentences to be cumulative. In respect of these convictions and sentences, there are now before the Court an appeal and an application for leave to appeal by each of the prisoners. (at p314)

2. It is convenient, we think, to deal with two grounds of appeal which, if they are decided in favour of the prisoners, would, without more, require the quashing of their convictions. These grounds are as follows :

"2. His Honour the learned trial judge erred in law in admitting into evidence a large number of articles and in admitting into evidence the verbal evidence of Det. Sgt. Boyter concerning the said articles and their use as the equipment of an expert safebreaker for the reasons that there was no nexus established between the said articles and the method by which the two safes subject of the charges against the applicants were opened and the said evidence was highly prejudicial to the applicants as tending only to show their criminal propensities. 3. His Honour the learned trial judge erred in law in admitting into evidence and summing up thereon the evidence of the witness Marr concerning the alleged drilling of safes by the applicant Thompson other than the safes the subject of the two charges."

The significance of each of these grounds will appear from a short statement of the facts. (at p314)

3. The stealing alleged included the taking of 320 Pounds from a safe in the Darwin Bowling Club, which had been blown open, and the taking of another safe and its contents from the Darwin Squash Centre. This safe was found rifled with its door blown off. (at p315)

4. The only real issue was whether the crimes were the work of the prisoners. (at p315)

5. As part of the evidence to identify the prisoners with the crimes with which they were charged, the Crown proved that they had in their possession a collection of tools and implements, which has been referred to as a "kit", for the opening of safes by blowing, by drilling or by picking the locks. Expert evidence was led about the way in which various parts of the "kit" could be used to open a safe. Thus Detective Sergeant Boyter, having been shown Ex. AB, said :

"I have examined that. I have never seen anything actually similar…

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 Thompson and Wran v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Thompson and Wran v The Queen [1968] HCA 21
Case: [1968] HCA 21
Decision Date: 3 May 1968

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by Thompson and Wran against their convictions for conspiracy to defraud. The appellants were charged with conspiring with others to defraud the Commonwealth by dishonestly obtaining financial assistance under the Commonwealth's export market development grants scheme. The central dispute revolved around the interpretation of the relevant legislation and whether the actions of the appellants constituted a conspiracy to defraud within the meaning of the criminal law.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in law in his directions to the jury concerning the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the jury had been adequately instructed on the requirement of dishonesty and the nature of the "defrauding" element, particularly in the context of a statutory scheme designed to provide financial assistance. The appeal also raised questions about the admissibility of certain evidence and the overall fairness of the trial.

The Court, in its reasoning, affirmed that a conspiracy to defraud requires an agreement between two or more persons to dishonestly deprive another of something of value or to interfere with their legal rights. It was held that the statutory scheme, while providing for grants, did not alter the fundamental common law principles of fraud. The judges considered the evidence presented and the directions given to the jury, ultimately finding that the jury had been properly instructed on the elements of the offence. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders