SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Coss [2016] QCA 44 PARTIES: R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2015 DC No 113 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal DELIVERED ON: 1 March 2016 DELIVERED AT: Appeal against Conviction & Sentence District Court at Cairns Date of Conviction: 19 May 2015; Date of Sentence: 19 May 2015 Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 February 2016 JUDGES: ORDERS: Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made 1. The appeal against conviction is allowed. 2. The convictions are quashed. 3. A retrial is ordered. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MISDIRECTION OR NON- DIRECTION NON-DIRECTION where the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape where, at trial, the appellant s counsel suggested the complainant had invented the allegations against the appellant because she did not like the appellant being her father s drinking mate and because she did not like her father s partner at the time where, in the closing address, the prosecutor asked the jury a rhetorical question as to why the complainant would make a false allegation against the appellant where the prosecution encouraged the jury to place the complainant in a class of people unlikely to give false evidence where the primary judge directed the jury that it was for the prosecution to prove that the complainant was accurate and truthful and not motivated by malice or any other reason and that it was not for the defence to identify any motive for making a false allegation where the primary judge did not direct the jury that any failure or inability on the part of the accused to prove a motive to lie did not establish that such motive did not exist; if such a motive existed, the accused may

2 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: 2 not know of it; there could be many reasons why a person may make, or join in the making of, false complaints; and if the jury was not persuaded that any motive to lie on the part of a complainant had been established, it would not necessarily mean that the complainant was truthful and it remained necessary for the jury to satisfy themselves of the complainant s truthfulness where defence counsel, at the conclusion of the judge s directions to the jury, asked for time to formulate a request for re-direction concerning the prosecutor s statements about motive where the primary judge stated that he did not intend to give further directions whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1), s 668E(1A) Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, followed R v Cupid [2004] VSCA 183, cited R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64, [2002] QCA 33, cited R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326, cited R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, followed Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531; [1991] HCA 38, cited T A Ryan for the appellant/applicant S J Farnden for the respondent Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent [1] MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant was convicted after a trial on 19 May 2015 of two counts of rape. He has appealed against these convictions contending that the trial judge erred in not adequately directing the jury in relation to comments made by the crown prosecutor in his closing address, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. [2] Both offences were alleged to have occurred in the complainant s bedroom on a date unknown between 1 June 2009 and 2 February 2010 when the complainant was 10 or 11 years old. The appellant was a friend of her father and a guest in their home. The complainant gave evidence that the appellant forced his penis into her mouth (count 1) and then inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent (count 2). Her evidence consisted of her statements to police which were admitted under s 93A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and her cross-examination which was taken and admitted under s 21AK Evidence Act. The appellant s counsel at trial cross-examined the complainant, suggesting that she had invented the allegations because she did not like the appellant (her father s drinking mate) and because she did not like C (her father s then partner) and wanted to leave home. She denied those allegations and maintained that the appellant committed the offences. The prosecution also called complaint evidence from the complainant s mother, school friends and C. [3] The appellant gave evidence that he did not commit the offences. Defence counsel in his closing address to the jury attacked the reliability of the complainant s evidence. He emphasised that it was in conflict with that of her mother and her father s former partner but did not suggest the complainant had a motive to give false evidence.

3 The prosecutor s closing address 3 [4] The prosecutor s closing address relevantly included the following: During his cross-examination of [the complainant], [defence counsel] put it to the complainant that these offences never occurred. That nothing of a sexual nature ever happened between her and the defendant...it was repeatedly put to [the complainant] during cross-examination that she was making up her evidence. So the million-dollar question, ladies and gentlemen is why? What possible motive could [the complainant] have for making up these allegations? [Defence counsel] suggested a number of reasons to [the complainant], none of which, you may think, seem to make any particular sense. Firstly, it was suggested that [the complainant] was lying because she didn t like the relationship between [the partner of the complainant s father] and her father. Secondly, it was suggested that she was lying because she didn t like washing up and cleaning the house for her father. And thirdly, it was suggested that she was lying because she didn t like the [appellant] drinking with her father. But the problem with those theories, ladies and gentlemen, is that, individually or collectively, they have absolutely no relevance to [the complainant s] life at the time that she told [a witness] and her mother what the [appellant] did to her. Her father was no longer with [C]. She no longer lived with her father. So she had and she had nothing to do with either [C] or [the appellant] at that stage. Which brings us back to the question of why? Why would [the complainant] make up a false complaint against the [appellant], who was long gone from her life, at the time she told her mother what happened? You saw the way [the complainant] gave her evidence, ladies and gentlemen. Did she appear to be the kind of girl who would be able to plan and pursue a vendetta against the [appellant] for no reason at all? If [the complainant] is lying, how is she benefited by making a false complaint against the [appellant]? She didn t seem to be enjoying herself too much when she was talking to the police or during cross-examination. You may think that she was clearly embarrassed talking about the offences, despite her generally positive demeanour. So why would [the complainant] choose to subject herself to police interviews, court proceedings, cross-examination, over a period of two years, if there was no substance to what she was saying? Why would she do that, ladies and gentlemen, if her evidence wasn t true? I repeat, ladies and gentlemen, you saw the way [the complainant] gave her evidence. How likely do you think it is that she would have the motivation and mental stamina to maintain a lie like that over a two year period? The bottom line is this, ladies and gentlemen, either the [appellant] inserted his penis in [the complainant s] mouth or he didn t. And he either inserted his penis into her vagina or he didn t. Either you accept that [the complainant] is a truthful and a reliable witness or you don t. Either [the complainant] is telling you the truth as best that she can recall or she has deliberately concocted two

4 4 separate, specific, unique allegations against an entirely innocent man, out of the blue, for no good reason at all. And there really is no middle ground in this case, ladies and gentlemen. But you may think that it is extremely doubtful whether the [complainant] would have the motivation or the capacity to construct a lie like that in the first place or the stamina to maintain it over a number of years. All that planning, determination and effort on the part of a young girl to tell you about something that never happened for no good reason at all. The judge s directions to the jury [5] The judge s directions to the jury relevantly included the usual reminder that submissions from counsel were not evidence but arguments. His Honour stated that it was for the jury to decide whether they accepted the evidence of a witness completely; rejected the evidence of a witness completely; or accepted only part of the evidence of a witness. In drawing inferences they must never speculate or guess; there must be a logical and rational connection between the facts found and any deductions or conclusions made; there was no room for intuition or guesswork. The standard of proof was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to return a verdict of guilty in respect of any charge. The jury must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved every element of that charge beyond reasonable doubt. While the appellant had given evidence, the responsibility for proof remained on the prosecution. At no stage did it shift to the appellant. By giving evidence he had not assumed any responsibility for proving his innocence. His evidence was simply added to the evidence already before the court in the prosecution case. [6] His Honour continued: Sometimes you hear these cases described as word against word. But you must understand that in a criminal trial, it is not a question of your making a choice between the evidence of the prosecution s principal witness or witnesses and the evidence of the [appellant]. The proper approach is to understand that the prosecution case depends upon you the jury accepting that the evidence of the prosecution s principal witness was true and accurate beyond reasonable doubt, despite sworn evidence of the [appellant]. You do not have to believe that the [appellant] is telling the truth before he is entitled to be found not guilty. 1 [7] The judge explained that if they thought the appellant s evidence was credible and reliable their verdict would be not guilty. If they found the appellant s evidence unconvincing but they were left in a state of reasonable doubt as to what the true position was, their verdict would be not guilty. If they found the appellant s evidence should not be accepted they must not jump to an automatic conclusion of guilt. He was not charged with telling lies. They should then put his evidence to one side and look at the rest of the evidence and ask whether, on a consideration of that evidence, they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution had proved every element of the offence. [8] The judge warned the jury of the difficulty for the appellant arising from the complainant s delay in making the complaint, consistent with Longman v The Queen: 2 it 1 Summing-up 7, (1989) 168 CLR 79.

5 5 would be dangerous to convict upon the complainant s testimony alone, unless, having scrutinised it with great care, considering the relevant circumstances and paying heed to this warning, they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of its truth and accuracy in relation to each charge. [9] His Honour then dealt with the competing contentions of counsel. In summarising the prosecution contentions his Honour dealt with the prosecutor s comments on motive: He did say to you at one stage, members of the jury he did ask you the rhetorical question, What motive would she have had to make a false allegation? Well, you need to be careful about that, because you remember, I said to you, it is not for the defence to prove anything. It s not for the defence to identify any motive or reason for the making of a false allegation. It is for the Crown to prove that the allegation was accurate and truthful and not in any way motivated by malice or any other reason, but having correct[ed] [the prosecutor] to that extent, the essence of his submission to you, in relation to that, I think, remains unaffected. He said to you that you would see her as someone who has been consistent and you would find no reason to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of her account. 3 [10] Later his Honour stated: It would be apparent to you, I think, that both [the prosecutor and defence counsel] are experienced criminal counsel and you may have thought, as I thought, they each presented their cases in a careful and detailed manner, without any undue resort to rhetoric or emotion, for example, and I do ask you to keep in mind all of the arguments that were made to you by counsel. 4 The application for redirection [11] At the conclusion of the judge s directions to the jury, the defence counsel asked for a few minutes to formulate a request for a re-direction concerning the prosecutor s statements about motive, in line with Robinson v The Queen. 5 The judge considered that, in the circumstances, his jury directions were sufficient. The prosecutor added that he made his submissions on motive in a way which was consistent with R v Geary. 6 The judge repeated that he did not intend to give any further directions. 7 The competing contentions in this appeal [12] The appellant s counsel conceded that, consistent with Geary, it was legitimate for the prosecutor at trial to address the jury on why the alleged motives raised with the complainant in cross-examination were unmeritorious. It was, however, improper for the prosecutor to pose the rhetorical question, why would the complainant make a false allegation against the appellant? This was objectionable for the reasons identified in Palmer v The Queen. 8 The observations in Palmer apply with equal force to a prosecutor s address: R v Kostaras. 9 The prosecutor s submissions to the jury amounted 3 Summing-up 12, Summing-up 12, (1991) 180 CLR [2003] 1 Qd R 64, [26]. 7 Summing-up (1998) 193 CLR 1. 9 (2002) 133 A Crim R 399, 411 [87].

6 6 to an exhortation to reverse the onus of proof. He presented the jury with the choice of finding the complainant was either lying or that she was telling the truth, and then reasoning that, if she was not lying, she must be telling the truth. The primary judge should have directed the jury that such reasoning overlooked the possibility that the jury might simply not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence of the appellant s guilt. The prosecutor s address encouraged the jury to conclude that the complainant belonged to a class of people unlikely to give false evidence so that her evidence was more likely to be truthful. The submissions made went well beyond those set out as acceptable in Geary. [13] The appellant s counsel contended that the trial judge should have addressed the jury in accordance with the suggested directions in R v Van Der Zyden 10 which have been adopted as the model direction in the Queensland Supreme and District Courts Benchbook. 11 The directions given to the jury were not sufficient to neutralise the prejudice that arose from the prosecutor s address about the absence of rational motive for the complainant to lie. Indeed, in otherwise affirming the prosecutor s submissions, the judge reinforced this impermissible reasoning. In the absence of directions in accordance with Van der Zyden, it could not be concluded that the jury would have inevitably convicted the appellant. It cannot be said that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred as a result of the error. The appeal must be allowed, the guilty verdicts set aside and a retrial ordered. [14] The respondent contended that when the judge s full directions to the jury are considered together with the impugned aspects of the prosecutor s address in context, there could be no doubt that the jury understood that it was not for the appellant to demonstrate why the complainant might lie. The prosecutor in his address always took the jury back to the complainant s evidence and whether they were satisfied of its truthfulness beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutor s address was consistent with the approach taken in Geary. 12 The judge s directions to the jury adequately dealt with the issue of the complainant s motive to lie and met the requirements of Van der Zyden. There has been no miscarriage of justice and the appeal should be dismissed. Conclusion [15] The appellant placed emphasis on Palmer where the accused was charged with sexual offences against a 14 year old girl. Palmer gave evidence at his trial. In cross-examination, when asked whether there was any reason why the complainant would invent the allegations against him, he was unable to suggest any reason. Brennan CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ stated: a complainant s account gains no legitimate credibility from the absence of evidence of motive. If credibility which the jury would otherwise attribute to the complainant s account is strengthened by an accused s inability to furnish evidence of a motive for a complainant to lie, the standard of proof is to that extent diminished. The correct view is the absence of proof of motive is entirely neutral. 13 Their Honours determined that, despite the clear directions of the primary judge to scrutinise the complainant s evidence with the utmost care and to be satisfied beyond 10 [2012] 2 Qd R At No. 43B. 12 Above, [23], [24] and [29]. 13 (1998) 193 CLR 1, 9.

7 7 reasonable doubt that her evidence was reliable before convicting, the questioning of the appellant about the complainant s motive may have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. [16] Kirby J noted it was common ground that the issue of a complainant s motivation ought never to be injected gratuitously into a trial nor made the central point of argument, whether by the prosecutor or by the judge, and that where an accused puts forward, by evidence or submission, a proposition that a crucial prosecution witness has a particular motive to lie, the judge should direct the jury that, even if they were to reject such motive, that would not mean that the witness was necessarily truthful. It was for the prosecution to prove that the witness was truthful. 14 [17] The respondent contended that the prosecutor s address conformed with this Court s decision in Geary. In that case the accused was convicted by a jury of four drug offences and appealed on a number of grounds, including that the prosecutor erred in inviting the jury to ask why witnesses would falsely implicate the accused, and that the trial judge failed to correct the submission. Defence counsel addressed the jury by inviting them to reject the evidence of the six indemnified witnesses; as indemnified accomplices they had powerful reasons to make up allegations against the accused; their evidence could not be accepted as reliable beyond reasonable doubt; the evidence of accomplices was frequently unreliable. The prosecutor responded in his address by asking the jury why any of those witnesses would falsely implicate the accused. As they had implicated others, they did not need to falsely implicate him. This Court distinguished Palmer which concerned sexual offences against a child. Williams JA, with whom de Jersey CJ and McPherson JA agreed, stated that an accused person s belief as to what may be motivating the complainant would hardly be relevant to any issue at the trial. But nothing in Palmer suggested that a prosecutor could not deal with issues of credit in the closing address to the jury, including making submissions as to whether a witness had a possible motive to lie. 15 It would be absurd if defence counsel could brand prosecution witnesses as liars with the prosecutor unable to explore the issue as to what motivation those witnesses might have to lie. In rejecting those grounds of appeal, the Court stated that the prosecutor acted perfectly properly in addressing the jury as he did and there was nothing for the primary judge to correct. 16 [18] Kirby J s statement that a prosecutor should not gratuitously raise the issue of the complainant s motive is supported by similar observations in the Victorian case of R v Cupid 17 and in the South Australian case of R v Kostaras. 18 In the later case, the accused, a school teacher, appealed against his conviction on four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15 year old boy. One ground of appeal concerned the prosecutor s submissions in the closing address asking the jury why the complainant or other prosecution witnesses would lie. Although the appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered on another ground, Doyle CJ, with whom Wicks and Besanko JJ agreed, noted that the observations in Palmer as to the cross-examination of the accused as to motive applied with equal force to the prosecutor s address to the jury: It is impermissible for prosecuting counsel to address the jury on a basis that implies that a failure by the accused, or an inability of the accused, to identify a motive for the complainant or a supporting 14 (1998) 193 CLR 1, [2003] 1 Qd R 64, 70, [25]. 16 Above, [26]-[29]. 17 [2004] VSCA 183, [30]. 18 (2002) 133 A Crim R 399.

8 8 witness to lie, in some way buttresses the credit of the complainant or of the witness or strengthens the prosecution case. Any such suggestion in the address has the same unjust and unsound tendencies as does cross-examination to that effect. 19 The court noted, however, that the complainant and other witnesses were crossexamined in a way that suggested that the complainant had fabricated his evidence and that the witnesses had collaborated to support him and that another witness had reasons linked to a failed business venture to give evidence adverse to the accused. It followed that the prosecutor was entitled to challenge the suggested motive for these witnesses to lie and to invite the jury to consider the likelihood that they would lie for the reasons suggested or implied. But a prosecutor was not entitled to take the further step and suggest that the absence of a persuasive motive to lie in fact enhanced the credibility of prosecution witnesses or strengthened the prosecution case. 20 As the prosecutor did no more than argue that the suggested motives to lie were not sustainable, her address was proper. [19] The topic was most recently considered by this Court in Van Der Zyden where the accused was convicted of several counts of sexual offences against children under 16. In his closing address to the jury the prosecutor commented that the complainants had no motive to lie. Defence counsel applied for and obtained a jury re-direction to the effect that it was not for the accused to show any motive as often such motives are unknown; the onus remained on the prosecution to prove guilt and there was no onus on the accused. Muir JA, with whom de Jersey CJ and Margaret Wilson AJA agreed, noted that the complainants were cross-examined to the effect that they had falsely accused the appellant because of police pressure. The prosecutor, although entitled to meet that contention in his closing jury address, should not have emphatically asserted that the complainants had no motive to lie and were motivated to give honest accounts. Those submissions implicitly invited the jury to accept the complainants evidence unless there was some demonstrated motive to lie. 21 The Court discussed Palmer, Hargraves v The Queen 22 and R v T, 23 recognising that a prosecutor was not prohibited from raising the absence of evidence of a complainant s motive to lie in a jury address where the defence had alleged a complainant was lying. 24 But as the prosecutor elevated the absence of motive to lie on the part of the complainants to a central matter in the jury s assessment of the case and positively asserted the absence of such a motive, the trial judge should have directed the jury along the lines that: any failure or inability on the part of the accused to prove a motive to lie did not establish that such motive did not exist; if such a motive existed, the accused may not know of it; there could be many reasons why a person may make, or join in the making of, false complaints; and 19 Above, 411 [87]. 20 Above, 411 [90]. 21 Above, [22]. 22 (2011) 245 CLR [1999] QCA Above, [28].

9 9 if the jury was not persuaded that any motive to lie on the part of a complainant had been established, it would not necessarily mean that the complainant was truthful and it remained necessary for the jury to satisfy themselves of the complainant s truthfulness. 25 [20] The Court held that the trial judge s directions were insufficient to address the risk arising from the prosecutor s address. The jury might conclude that the absence of any proven reason for a false complaint strengthened the suggestion that the complainants must be telling the truth. The jury might reason that unless each complainant was shown to have a motive to lie his evidence should be accepted. 26 But no such re-direction was sought. This meant that the appeal could succeed only if the failure to give those directions constituted a miscarriage of justice. Defence counsel at trial was given an opportunity to consider Palmer and the judge gave the direction defence counsel considered appropriate, omitting the words often such motives are never known. This was a rational forensic decision on the part of defence counsel not to have this additional direction. It followed that no miscarriage of justice had been shown and the appeal was dismissed. 27 [21] Since May 2013, the Supreme and District Courts Benchbook has cited Van Der Zyden and the model direction it contains set out in [19] above, under the heading Absence of Complainant s Motive to Lie. 28 [22] It is accepted that the prosecutor in the present case was entitled to address the jury as to why they should not accept the motives for giving false evidence put to, but rejected by the complainant in cross-examination. There is no doubt that the otherwise fair, balanced and comprehensive primary judge s directions to the jury 29 made clear that before convicting the appellant on either charge they must be satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that they could not act on the complainant s evidence without scrutinising it with great care and being satisfied of its truth and accuracy. The jury also must have appreciated from his Honour s directions that it was not for the defence to identify any motive or reason for the making of a false allegation and it was for the prosecution to establish that the complainant s evidence was accurate and truthful and not motivated by malice or any other reason. But the judge s directions failed to instruct the jury that, even if they found no evidence of any motive to lie, this did not establish that such a motive did not exist; if there was a motive the appellant may not know of it; there may be many reasons why a person may make a false complaint; if they found no evidence of a motive to lie, this did not necessarily mean the complainant was truthful; it remained necessary to satisfy themselves that she was truthful. In the absence of such a direction, there was a real possibility that the jury may have impermissibly reasoned that they could be more easily satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant s evidence was reliable as there was no evidence of any motive for her to make up these allegations. [23] This risk was not diminished by the prosecutor reminding the jury that the ultimate question was whether they believed the complainant s evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the judge s directions that, apart from the correction set out at [9] of 25 Above, [32]. 26 Above, [33]. 27 Above, [35]-[42]. 28 No. 43B. 29 Set out at [5] [10] of these reasons.

10 10 these reasons, the essence of the prosecutor s submissions to the jury remains unaffected and the jury should keep in mind all of the arguments that were made to [them] by counsel, reinforced the prosecutor s impermissible suggestion that the absence of accepted evidence of motive to lie strengthened the prosecution case. [24] Defence counsel in this case noted his concern about the judge s directions as to motive and sought time to research the question but the judge determined that his directions were adequate. This may be contrasted with Van Der Zyden, where no redirection was sought so that there was no error of law with the result that the appeal in that case could succeed only if a miscarriage of justice was established. In the present case the judge s omission to give a comprehensive direction of the kind set out in Van Der Zyden was an error of law under s 668E(1) Criminal Code. The complainant and the appellant in this case gave contradictory sworn evidence. The appellant has been deprived of the chance of a properly instructed jury considering the case. I am not persuaded there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice under s 668E(1A) Criminal Code: see Weiss v The Queen. 30 It follows that the appeal against conviction must be allowed, the convictions set aside and a re-trial ordered. Order 1. The appeal against conviction is allowed. 2. The convictions are quashed. 3. A retrial is ordered. [25] GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by McMurdo P and with the reasons given by her Honour. [26] MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Margaret McMurdo P and agree with those reasons and the orders her Honour proposes. 30 (2005) 224 CLR 300, [41]-[45].

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Greenwood [2002] QCA 360 PARTIES: R v GREENWOOD, Mark (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 68 of 2002 DC No 351 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

Jury Directions Act 2015

Jury Directions Act 2015 Examinable excerpts of Jury Directions Act 2015 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes 3 Definitions Part 1 Preliminary The purposes of this Act are (a) to reduce the complexity of jury directions in criminal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE

TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Scrivener v DPP [2001] QCA 454 PARTIES: LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent/respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford

More information

Take the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:

Take the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]: Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number

More information

STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine

STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No. 09-3031 State of New Maine Instruction Number Instruction Description 1. Preliminary Instructions 2. Functions of

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2013-0840, State of New Hampshire v. Timothy J. Beers, the court on February 23, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant, Timothy J. Beers,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

S V THE QUEEN [VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER*

S V THE QUEEN [VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER* [VOL. 21 RICHARD HOOKER* Difficulties commonly arise for the Crown in the prosecution of assault cases, particularly of a sexual nature, where the complainant is unable to specify particular acts of the

More information

Stubley v. Western Australia, [2011] HCA 7, (2011) 275 A.L.R. 451 (March 30, 2011) High Court of Australia Evidence Bad character Propensity

Stubley v. Western Australia, [2011] HCA 7, (2011) 275 A.L.R. 451 (March 30, 2011) High Court of Australia Evidence Bad character Propensity J.C.C.L. Case Notes 317 EVIDENCE OF PROPENSITY AND IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES Stubley v. Western Australia, [2011] HCA 7, (2011) 275 A.L.R. 451 (March 30, 2011) High Court of Australia Evidence Bad character

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Ford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 440 PARTIES: R v FORD, Garry Robin (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2006 DC No

More information

THE JERSEY LAW COMMISSION

THE JERSEY LAW COMMISSION THE JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 3/2008/CP December 2008 The Jersey Law Commission was set up by a Proposition

More information

SHELDON THOMAS. and THE QUEEN : March 11; October

SHELDON THOMAS. and THE QUEEN : March 11; October GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2002 BETWEEN: SHELDON THOMAS and THE QUEEN Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Appellant Respondent

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Dent [2002] QCA 247 PARTIES: R v DENT, Kevin Ian (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 323 of 2001 SC No 3 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Richardson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 294 PARTIES: R v RICHARDSON, Michael Raymond (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant) FILE NO/S:

More information

GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to

GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Hung [2012] QCA 341 PARTIES: R v HUNG, Wally James (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2012 SC No 158 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Angus [2000] QCA 29 PARTIES: R v ANGUS, Christopher Carl (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 340 of 1999 DC No 104 of 1999 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Dariush-Far v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCA 21 ALEXANDER HAMID DARIUSH-FAR (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]

More information

LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes

LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes Important Provisions to Keep in Mind... 2 Voir Dire... 2 Adducing of Evidence Ch 2 Evidence Act... 4 Calling Witnesses... 8 Examination of witnesses... 11 Cross-Examination...

More information

Tendency Evidence Post-Hughes

Tendency Evidence Post-Hughes Tendency Evidence Post-Hughes Scott Johns SC and Christopher Wareham Holmes List Barristers and Gorman Chambers 1. Statutory Framework 1.1 Section 97 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ( the Evidence Act )

More information

Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal

Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal >> 2008 >> [2008] QCA

More information

Excluding Admissions

Excluding Admissions Excluding Admissions (Handout) Arjun Chhabra, Solicitor Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited Central South Eastern Region Conference Saturday 2 May 2015 Purpose My talk is on excluding admissions

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2006 v No. 263625 Grand Traverse Circuit Court COLE BENJAMIN HOOKER, LC No. 04-009631-FC

More information

THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O)

THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O) THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O) 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE & MANGOTA JJ HARARE, 9 & 23 October 2014 Criminal Appeal T Madzingira,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Witheyman v Van Riet & Ors [2008] QCA 168 PARTIES: PETER ROBERT WITHEYMAN (applicant/appellant) v NICHOLAS DANIEL VAN RIET (first respondent) EKARI PARK PTY LTD ACN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT

[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT [2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN v S Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 21/02/2001 JUDGMENT 1 21022001 T3/FF14 M/T COA40/2001 THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will

More information

JAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and

JAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and [2014] JMCA Crim 52 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McINTOSH JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA JEROME

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Roser [2004] QCA 318 PARTIES: R v ROSER, Matthew Scott (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 265 of 2004 DC No 1432 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sittczenko; ex parte Cth DPP [2005] QCA 461 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 221 of 2005 DC No 405 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: R v SITTCZENKO, Arkady

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ BBH APPLICANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT BBH v The Queen [2012] HCA 9 28 March 2012 B76/2010 ORDER 1. Application for

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 18, 2004 v No. 244553 Shiawassee Circuit Court RICKY ALLEN PARKS, LC No. 02-007574-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Cornwall [2005] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v CORNWALL, Jason Colin (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2005 DC No 147 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2012 v No. 303984 Kent Circuit Court ERIC JON SCOTT, II, LC No. 10-005438-FH 10-005439-FH 10-009653-FC

More information

Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court'

Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court' Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court' March 2015 The Law Society 2015 Page 1 of 7 Response of the Law Society of England

More information

TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE:

TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE: TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE: The significance of Velkoski Author: Lucy Line Date: 12 February, 2015 Copyright 2015 This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright Act 1968,

More information

IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN. -v- GERARD JUDGE. Before: Morgan LCJ, Weir LJ and Colton J

IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN. -v- GERARD JUDGE. Before: Morgan LCJ, Weir LJ and Colton J Neutral Citation No [2017] NICA 22 Ref: MOR10274 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 5/04/2017 (subject to editorial corrections)* IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND

More information

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt [2018] QCA 127 PARTIES: A TOP CLASS TURF PTY LTD ACN 108 471 049 (applicant) v MICHAEL DANIEL PARFITT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect

Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Don Mathias Barrister, Auckland Hearsay confessions In order to raise a reasonable doubt about the accused s guilt, the defence may seek to call

More information

Doli Incapax an assessment of the current state of the law in Queensland

Doli Incapax an assessment of the current state of the law in Queensland Doli Incapax an assessment of the current state of the law in Queensland This document has been drafted to assist the Youth Advocacy Centre Inc in current discussions around the age of criminal responsibility.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL -1 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL No 846 of 2008 THE QUEEN v MAGID SAID --- JUDGES: WHERE HELD: MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and COGHLAN AJA MELBOURNE DATE OF HEARING: 20 October 2009 DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3. v. Her Majesty the Queen

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3. v. Her Majesty the Queen NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3 Date: 20180109 Docket: CAC 470957 Registry: Halifax Between: Rita Mary Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge: Motion

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Fardon [2011] QCA 155 ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (appellant) v ROBERT JOHN FARDON (respondent)

More information

GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD

GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD [02] QCA 369 COURT OF APPEAL WILLIAMS JA JERRARD JA HELMAN J CA No 59 of 02 THE QUEEN v. GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 9/09/02 JUDGMENT MR N V WESTON (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

More information

Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991

Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991 No. 8/1991 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY Section 1. Purposes 2. Commencement PART 2 AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMES ACT 1958 3. New Subdivisions (8) to (8F) inserted in Division 1 of Part I (8) Sexual

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Collins [2017] QCA 113 PARTIES: R v COLLINS, John (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 314 of 2014 DC No 435 of 2014 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA695/2014 [2016] NZCA 163 BETWEEN AND

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v BCA [2011] QCA 278 PARTIES: R v BCA (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 325 of 2010 DC No 202 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Johnson [2007] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v JOHNSON, Anthony James (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2007 SC No 783 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: R v FQ [2008] QCA 68 R v FQ (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 227 of 2007 DC No 200 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc State of Missouri, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SC93851 ) Sylvester Porter, ) ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable Timothy

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CvA. No. 43 OF 2001 BETWEEN STEVE WILLIAMS APPELLANT AND THE STATE RESPONDENT CORAM: L. Jones, J.A. M. Warner, J.A. A. Lucky, J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr.

More information

Jones v Dunkel in the criminal trial witnesses other than the accused

Jones v Dunkel in the criminal trial witnesses other than the accused Jones v Dunkel in the criminal trial witnesses other than the accused By Nick Boyden* Recent authorities severely limit the availability of a Jones v Dunkel direction against a silent accused in a criminal

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE Matter No S313/2013 DO YOUNG (AKA ASON) LEE APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Matter No S314/2013 SEONG WON LEE APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Day v Queensland Parole Board [2016] QSC 11 PARTIES: TREVOR DAY (applicant) v QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD (respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 5174 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

West Headnotes (10) 2014 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

West Headnotes (10) 2014 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. 2014 WL 3729864 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. West Headnotes (10) NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 321217 Missaukee Circuit Court JAMES DEAN WRIGHT, LC No. 2013-002570-FC 2013-002596-FC

More information

The Law Around a Miscarriage of Justice in Queensland

The Law Around a Miscarriage of Justice in Queensland Bond University Student Law Review Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 2 2007 The Law Around a Miscarriage of Justice in Queensland Dylan Wiltermuth Bond University, dwilterm@student.bond.edu.au Follow this and additional

More information

The Law on Corroboration in Fiji and Vanuatu. * Sofia Shah

The Law on Corroboration in Fiji and Vanuatu. * Sofia Shah The Law on Corroboration in Fiji and Vanuatu * Sofia Shah In any criminal case evidence is required to find a person guilty of an offence or to acquit the person of the alleged offence. Common law has

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. and. Christopher Raymond O Halloran. Before: The Honourable Justice Wayne D.

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. and. Christopher Raymond O Halloran. Before: The Honourable Justice Wayne D. SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. O Halloran 2013 PESC 22 Date: 20131029 Docket: S2-GC-130 Registry: Summerside Her Majesty the Queen and Christopher Raymond O Halloran Before: The

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Lui & Johnston [2011] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v LUI, Malakai (appellant) R v JOHNSTON, Dustin (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 252 of 2010 CA No 259 of 2010 SC No 1536

More information

Evidence. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW. 1.3 Taking Objections

Evidence. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW. 1.3 Taking Objections Evidence 1. Introduction 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, 26-29 1.2 Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW Uniform Evidence Law ALRC Evidence Interim and Final Reports would be useful for interpreting

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mrzljak [2004] QCA 420 PARTIES: R v MRZLJAK, Esad Eso (appellant) FILE NOS: CA No 165 of 2003 DC No 768 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify

Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify This guide is a gift of the United States Government PRACTICE GUIDE Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify AT A GLANCE Intended Audience: Prosecutors working

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McDonald [2016] QCA 200 PARTIES: R v McDONALD, Allan David (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 300 of 2015 DC No 88 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 3696 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Cr. App. No. 13 of 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN RICK GOMES Appellant AND THE STATE Respondent PANEL: P. Weekes, J.A A. Yorke-SooHon, J.A R. Narine, J.A APPEARANCES:

More information

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS: REDISCOVERING CRIMINAL DISCOVERY AND THE CHALLENGES OF DISCLOSURE -A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE-

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS: REDISCOVERING CRIMINAL DISCOVERY AND THE CHALLENGES OF DISCLOSURE -A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE- CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS: REDISCOVERING CRIMINAL DISCOVERY AND THE CHALLENGES OF DISCLOSURE -A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE- JUDGE MARSHALL IRWIN CHIEF MAGISTRATE QUEENSLAND The concept of criminal discovery which

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant AND ISRAEL HERNANDEZ ORELLANO Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 20450/2014 In the matter between: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG APPELLANT and MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA RESPONDENT Neutral

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

Defending Yourself in Court on a Not Guilty Plea

Defending Yourself in Court on a Not Guilty Plea Defending Yourself in Court on a Not Guilty Plea The ideal solution when you have been charged with a criminal offence is to allow a lawyer to handle your case. However, if the matter is reasonably simple

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v TP; R v SBA [2007] QCA 169 PARTIES: R v TP (appellant) R v SBA (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 289 of 2006 CA No 295 of 2006 DC No 375 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND HEYDON JJ DANIEL CRIS PHILLIPS APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT 1. Appeal allowed. Phillips v The Queen [2006] HCA 4 Date of Order: 9 December

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Douglas [2004] QCA 1 PARTIES: R v DOUGLAS, Gillian Jean (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 312 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED EX TEMPORE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Shorten v Bell-Gallie [2014] QCA 300 PARTIES: IAN RODGER WILLIAM SHORTEN (applicant) v SHIRLEY BELL-GALLIE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11869 of 2013 QCAT Appeal

More information

Introduction to Criminal Law

Introduction to Criminal Law Introduction to Criminal Law CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Crimes versus Civil Wrongs 2 Types of Criminal Offences 3 General Principles of Criminal Law 4 Accessories and Parties to Crimes 5 Attempted

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89 PARTIES: CENTRAL QUEENSLAND HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE (Applicant) v Q BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN

More information

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE

More information

2018COA180. No. 16CA1134, People v. Garcia Juries Challenges for Cause Peremptory Challenges; Appeals Invited Error Doctrine

2018COA180. No. 16CA1134, People v. Garcia Juries Challenges for Cause Peremptory Challenges; Appeals Invited Error Doctrine The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR OHS REGULATION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BRIEFING Work Health and Safety Briefing In this Briefing This Work Health and Safety Briefing presents three key cases. The cases have

More information

Tendency and Coincidence Evidence in Victoria: Velkoski v The Queen

Tendency and Coincidence Evidence in Victoria: Velkoski v The Queen Tendency and Coincidence Evidence in Victoria: Velkoski v The Queen Andrew Palmer Victorian Bar and Melbourne Law School 1. In Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 at [165] the Court of Appeal said that

More information