Palmer v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 67

Murray Torcetti Lawyers are criminal defence lawyers who appear in Brisbane and Caboolture Courts. We write our own case notes from recent criminal decisions for internal purposes. However, unlike your annoying sibling, we don’t mind sharing.

Facts:

The Appellant appealed against convictions and sentence relating to charges of evading police, driving without a licence while disqualified, and possessing dangerous drugs. The original hearing took place in the Magistrates Court at Caboolture, where Mr. Palmer was fined $7,150 and had convictions recorded on all counts. He was found asleep near a vehicle that had evaded police earlier, with personal items linking him to the vehicle. Drugs were found on his person during a police search​​.

Finding:

Appeal against Conviction: The District Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, concluding the circumstantial evidence presented, including descriptions and found items, supported the original findings.

Appeal against Sentence: The appeal against the sentence was allowed. The original fine was set aside due to the significant pre-sentence custody of 260 days, which was deemed excessive. Instead, the appellant was sentenced to 50 days imprisonment for the evading police charge, with the time considered already served. Additionally, he was placed under a six-month supervised release program for the other charges, focusing on rehabilitation and treatment for his mental health issues​​.

Notes for practice:

Here the court dealt extensively with circumstantial evidence to affirm the convictions of Stuart William Palmer for evading police, driving while disqualified, and possession of dangerous drugs. Here’s a detailed breakdown of how the circumstantial evidence was evaluated and utilized by the court:

1. Nature of Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence involves drawing inferences from facts when direct evidence is not available. In this case, the link between Palmer and the criminal activities was primarily established through various indirect pieces of evidence rather than direct witness testimony or explicit acknowledgment of guilt from Palmer.
2. Specific Instances of Circumstantial Evidence:

Vehicle Identification and Association: The vehicle involved in evading police was identified as a silver Commodore, seen being driven by someone matching the appellant’s description. Although the direct identification of the appellant as the driver at the moment of evading police was not possible, his association with the vehicle was established through his presence near it under suspicious circumstances and personal items found within it, such as a mobile phone and a prison release document in his name.

Physical Description and Location: Police testimony described the driver of the evading vehicle as having physical attributes similar to the appellant’s (e.g., height, hair). Furthermore, the appellant’s was found asleep not far from where the vehicle was eventually abandoned. This proximity in both time and location strengthened the inference that he was involved.

Apparel Matching: The clothing the appellant’s wore when found was identical to that observed by the police on the person who fled — specifically, a red shirt and black pants, further solidifying the connection between him and the events in question.

3. Linking Evidence to Charges: Evading Police: The critical point for this charge was establishing that the appellant’s was driving the vehicle at the time it failed to stop for the police. The circumstantial evidence here was his proximity to the abandoned vehicle, the clothing match, and the personal items found in the car.

Driving While Disqualified: Records confirmed that the appellant’s was disqualified from driving at the time of the offence. The circumstantial evidence placing him in control of the vehicle thus directly contributed to this charge.

Possession of Dangerous Drugs: When the appellant’s was searched, drugs were found on him. While this could be seen as direct evidence, the circumstantial aspect involves linking him to the ongoing use and possession through his location and activities around the time of arrest.

4. Court's Evaluation: The court reviewed each piece of circumstantial evidence, evaluating its credibility and the logical inferences that could be drawn from it. The coherence of the evidence as a whole was deemed strong enough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Palmer was guilty of the charges against him.

The court specifically noted that the combination of evidence related to the vehicle's evasion from police and the appellant’s subsequent behaviours and the items found with him formed a compelling narrative pointing to his guilt.

5. Conclusion of the Circumstantial Case: The judge concluded that the only rational inference from the combined circumstantial evidence was the appellant’s guilt. It was emphasised that while each individual piece of evidence might not conclusively prove guilt, the totality of all evidence excluded any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.

This detailed handling of circumstantial evidence demonstrates the court’s careful consideration of indirect evidence in building a strong, coherent case when direct evidence may be lacking or insufficient.

• Circumstantial Evidence: Robust circumstantial evidence can support a conviction if it logically points to the guilt and excludes other reasonable hypotheses.
• Rehabilitation Focus: The court prioritized rehabilitation over additional custodial punishment, especially considering the appellant's mental health challenges and previous substance abuse.
• Management of Pre-sentence Custody: The significant time spent in pre-sentence custody was a critical factor in adjusting the sentence, underscoring the importance of considering all aspects of time served when finalising sentencing decisions.

Because lawyers love a good disclaimer – here is ours – It boils down to: If you need legal advice see a lawyer. Dr Google isn’t going to prescribe you meds if you are sick, Google LLB isn’t going to give you advice or information specific to your situation.

If you need legal assistance. See a lawyer. We are lawyers, you can absolutely call us on 07 5414 4209. Criminal law is what we do and a reason we publish these notes…

You might not read it, but we will rely on it if you try and sue us (smug face).