Doug Winning claims jury’s conviction of attempted bribery was ‘unreasonable’

A Rockhampton lawyer who was found guilty of attempting to bribe police claims the verdict was “unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence”.

A Rockhampton lawyer who was found guilty of attempting to bribe police to avoid getting a drink-driving ticket claims the verdict was “unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence”.

Doug Wining was 67 when he was found guilty of the attempted bribery charge in Rockhampton District Court on October 7, 2020, and sentenced to nine months’ jail, wholly suspended and operational for 18 months.

He appealed the conviction on three grounds – two miscarriages of justice alleging the trial judge twice failed to give appropriate directions outlined in two High Court decisions, and the third being “the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence”.

Winning was found guilty of trying to bribe two Rockhampton police officers – Senior Constable Jesse Parkin and Constable Naomi Davies – who had intercepted Winning at 1am driving while intoxicated on February 17, 2019.

They had been patrolling and witnessed a car driving erratically and knocking over a street sign which was seen bouncing off the vehicle.

Winning pulled over on Elphinstone St near the Dean St intersection and his car had significant damage to the bonnet and a front tyre was deflated when police inspected it.

Winning’s roadside blood-alcohol content reading was .191 and the second test, conducted later at the police station, was .146, the court heard.

He had $300 cash in $50 notes in his possession at the time.

Doug Winning leaves Rockhampton Magistrates Court.

Winning told police he had drunk two bottles of Bundaberg Rum in the prior 24 hours, along with taking his antidepressant medication which he had taken for 20 years.

He said he had been drinking since Friday night after returning from Blackwater court and had also been asleep for many hours prior to driving in the early hours that Monday morning on February 17.

Crown prosecutor Nigel Rees said Mr Winning waved around a fist full of $50 notes while saying the words the crown alleged was an offer of bribery.

Body worn footage of the incident played in court showed a shirtless Mr Winning behind the wheel of a VW wagon, later identified to the court by Mr Winning as belonging to the CQ Legal Centre, with a wallet looking object in his left hand and $50 notes in his right hand which he waved around and said “I can’t pay my way out of this, can I?”

Snr Constable Parkin said no.

Later, once Winning was out of the vehicle, he was heard on the video to say “you want a lazy quid” twice.

During the course of three videos shown to the jury at the trial, Winning spoke about his daughter being threatened by someone and he was driving to his former wife’s house to deal with the matter.

He also threatened to kill the person threatening his daughter, and told police he wanted to kill himself and was “f---ed in the head”.

The court heard Winning also made unprofessional and inappropriate comments to Constable Davies, which he was repeatedly told were not appropriate.

He told police he was “Queensland’s best criminal lawyer” and “I act for the police”.

Former police officer Warren Williams, who was a watch house sergeant when Mr Winning was arrested for the drink-driving matter, said Mr Winning pulled the money and car keys from his pocket, placed them on the counter, flicked a $50 note towards himself and another police officer and said “you are good c---s. Have a drink on me.”

The Court of Appeal handed down its decision on November 12 following a hearing on October 6.

Justice Philip Morrison wrote in the decision, which was agreed by fellow Court of Appeal judges Justice Debra Mullins and Justice David Boddice, “the jury could conclude that Winning was intoxicated, but not so intoxicated that he was unaware of what was taking place, and what he was doing.

“It was open to the jury to conclude that Winning had the requisite intent namely intending that the police officers act contrary to their duty.

“Refraining from conducting a trial by appellate court rather than a trial by jury, I am unable to conclude that there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted.”

Justice Morrison also concluded there were no miscarriages of justice as claimed by Winning.

Winning’s appeal was dismissed.

The Morning Bulletin has attempted to contact Winning but had no response at the time of publication.