R v Long; ex parte A-G

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY - where publicity prejudicial to the appellant was published in the three days prior to the appellant being charged - where trial did not take place until 20 months after the last of the prejudicial publicity was published in the media - where much of this publicity was available on the internet after the charges were laid - where appellant submits that the jury would have been able to access the internet material - whether learned trial judge erred in refusing to grant a permanent stay of the indictment CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - GENERALLY - where appellant submits that there was a substantial risk that prejudicial pre-trial publicity precluded him from a fair trial - where learned trial judge gave firm directions to the jury at the commencement of the trial to ignore any related publicity and decide on the evidence alone - where directions repeated in summing up - where no complaint made of directions - whether pre-trial publicity resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE - where trial was held in a large, ceremonial court instead of a regular criminal court - where appellant submits this led to a "show" trial and pressured the jury to deliver guilty verdicts - where appellant applied at pre-trial hearing for the use of a regular criminal court - where prosecution supported the application - where learned trial judge ascertained that the ceremonial court would function satisfactorily for the trial - whether use of the ceremonial court amounted to a miscarriage of justice when combined with the pre-trial publicity

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - STATEMENTS - VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS - VOLUNTARINESS - PARTICULAR CASES - where appellant confessed to police officers that he started the hostel fire - where appellant made this admission immediately after he had been shot at by police officers - where appellant submits that confession was not voluntary - where Crown discharged its obligation to show the confession was not induced - where learned trial judge concluded that the confession was voluntary as it was in the nature of a dying declaration - whether confession wrongly admitted

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS - PARTICULAR CASES - where confession passed common law tests of voluntariness and reliability - where appellant submits that confession was obtained in circumstances which were unacceptable with respect to prevailing community standards - whether learned trial judge should have excluded the confession on a discretionary basis

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where Attorney-General appeals against the minimum term to be served before appellant can be considered for parole - where Attorney-General argues for this term to be increased because the accused's act resulted in the death of 15 people not only the death of the two with which he was charged - where learned trial judge did not sentence the accused on the basis that he had committed 15 murders - where accused was sentenced on the basis that the deaths were not intentional but caused by his intentional arson - whether learned trial judge erred in sentencing the accused

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 69A

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 189

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 198, s 234 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 55, not followed

MacPherson v The Queen [1981] HCA 46; (1981) 147 CLR 512, considered

McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501, considered

R v D [1995] QCA 329; [1996] 1 Qd R 363, distinguished

R v Glennon [1992] HCA 16; (1992) 173 CLR 592, considered

R v McLachlan [2000] VSC 215; 24 May 2000, distinguished

R v Murphy [1989] HCA 28; (1989) 167 CLR 94, considered

R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159

T D Martin SC, with M C Chowdhury, for the appellant in CA No 104 of 2002 and for the respondent in CA No 81 of 2002

D L Meredith for the respondent in CA No 104 of 2002 and for the appellant in CA No 81 of 2002

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant in CA No 104 of 2002 and for the respondent in CA No 81 of 2002

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 104 of 2002 and for the appellant in CA No 81 of 2002