Watson v The Queen (No 2) - [2020] ACTCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Watson v The Queen (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTCA 30
Hearing Date:	21 May 2020
DecisionDate:	22 June 2020
Before:	Elkaim J, Robinson AJ and Crowe AJ
Decision:	See [69]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Conviction – Whether primary judge erred in law in refusing appellant to rely on proposed defences – whether proposed defences tenable in law and fact – whether the primary judge misdirected himself – whether the defendant was forced to enter guilty pleas and did not receive a fair trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Sentence – Manifest excess – recommendation of full-time imprisonment – loss and reversal of onus – breach of trust as aggravating feature – good character
Legislation Cited:	Building Act 2004 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 300, 326, 328, 347 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 144,160(1), dictionary pt 1
Cases Cited:	Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 Knight v Victoria [2017] HCA 29; 261 CLR 306 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 R v Alhassan [2010] ACTSC 84 R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218 R v Knight [1989] VR 705 R v Toro-Martinez [2000] NSWCCA 216 Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 Sultan v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 175
Parties:	Andrew Gregory Watson (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel J Masters with A Costin (Appellant) K Lee (Respondent)

Solicitors

Marjason & Marjason Solicitors (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

AC 5 of 2020

Decision under appeal:

Court: Supreme Court of the ACT

Before: Burns J

Date of Decision: 28 January 2020

Case Title: R v Watson

Citation: [2020] ACTSC 30

THE COURT:

On 26 September 2019, Andrew Gregory Watson (the appellant) pleaded guilty to four counts of using a false document contrary to s 347 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) and four counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to

s 326 of the Criminal Code. An Agreed Statement of Facts was then tendered for the purposes of sentence. Thereafter, the appellant was sentenced to periods of imprisonment by Burns J (the trial Judge) to which it will be necessary to return to in detail.

By an Amended Notice of Appeal, the appellant appeals against both his convictions for the offences and also against the sentences imposed upon him.

Procedural history

To place the pleas of guilty in their proper context, for the purposes of the conviction appeal, it is necessary to set out some of the procedural history.

Mr Watson entered pleas of not guilty in the Magistrates Court on 14 February 2018 and was committed for trial to the Supreme Court. On 20 August 2018, the Crown filed an indictment containing 8 counts. On 1 April 2019 a jury was empanelled, and preliminary issues were addressed…

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 Watson v The Queen (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Watson v The Queen (No 2) [2020] ACTCA 30
Case: [2020] ACTCA 30
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Watson, appealed against his conviction and sentence for offences including fraud and obtaining financial advantage by deception. The central dispute concerned whether the primary judge erred in law by refusing to allow the appellant to rely on certain proposed defences, and whether these defences were tenable in law and fact. The appellant also contended that the primary judge misdirected himself and that he was effectively forced to enter guilty pleas, thereby being denied a fair trial. The appeal was heard by Elkaim J, Robinson AJ, and Crowe AJ.

The legal issues before the appellate court included whether the primary judge correctly determined that the proposed defences were not available to the appellant, and whether the refusal to permit reliance on these defences constituted a misdirection or a denial of a fair trial. Furthermore, the court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the aggravating factor of breach of trust and the appellant's good character.

The court found that the primary judge had correctly assessed the tenability of the proposed defences, concluding that they were not available in law or fact to the appellant. Consequently, the refusal to allow these defences did not amount to a misdirection or a denial of a fair trial. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that while the breach of trust was a significant aggravating factor, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive when viewed in its entirety. The court therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [69]

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.