Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-05-18|Before: McMurdo P, White and Dutney JJ.Separate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
McMurdo P, White and Dutney JJ.Separate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS
NOT RAISED IN COURT
BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether the
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTSNOT RAISED IN COURTBELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether theadmission of potentially prejudicialevidence should have resulted in thedischarging of the jury.CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE–CIRCUMSTANCESNOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL–IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OFEVIDENCE – whether on the wholeof the evidence there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice –whether prejudicialevidence affected the judgment of the jury such that thejury should have been discharged – whether the proviso isapplicable.CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
– APPEAL BY
CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED
1988Jury Act 1995 s 60(1)Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Part 10, s 163, s 165(1), s 169, s 170, s 171, s 173Crofts v The
Queen [1996] HCA 22
(1996) 186 CLR 427, consideredDe Jesus v The Queen (1987)
61 ALRJ 1, referred toThe Queen v Fletcher CA No 243 of 1998, 25
September 1998, followedMaric v R (1978) 20 ALR 513, referred
toR v Glennon [1992] HCA 16
(1992) 173 CLR 592, consideredR v Knape
[1965] VicRp 63
[1965] VR 469, consideredThe Queen v Wilson CA Nos 200 of 1996 and
333 of 1996, 28 November 1997, followedWebb and Hay v R [1994] HCA 30
(1993-4) 181
CLR 41, consideredWilde v The Queen [1988] HCA 6
(1987-88) 164 CLR 365,
distinguished
Judgment (14 paragraphs)
[1]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - whether the admission of potentially prejudicial evidence should have resulted in the discharging of the jury.
[2]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE -CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL -IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - whether on the whole of the evidence there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice - whether prejudicial evidence affected the judgment of the jury such that the jury should have been discharged - whether the proviso is applicable. CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - SEXUAL OFFENCES - whether sentence of indefinite imprisonment justified.