Adam John Street v The Queen - [2013] ACTCA 47

ADAM JOHN STREET V THE QUEEN
[2013] ACTCA 47 (15 November 2013)

APPEAL – Appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice by denying appellant fair hearing according to law – s 37O(2)(a)(iii) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – whether prosecutor’s closing address was unfair to the appellant – whether prosecutor put to the jury matters that did not have evidentiary basis or were contrary to evidence – whether prosecutor put matters to jury which were not put to appellant – whether prosecutor made comments which belittled or ridiculed appellant’s evidence– counsel for appellant failed to raise concerns with trial judge – unfairness not made out – no miscarriage of justice – appeal dismissed.

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O

Bugeja v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 493; [2010] VSCA 321

Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 60 of 2012
No. SCC 370 of 2009

Judges: Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory

Date: 15 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 60 of 2012
  )          No. SCC 370 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADAM JOHN STREET
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ
Place:  Canberra
Date:  15 November 2013

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 60 of 2012

)          No. SCC 370 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ADAM JOHN STREET
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

Judges:  Penfold, North JJ and Nield AJ
Place:  Canberra
Date:  15 November 2013

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant, Adam John Street, was found guilty on 17 August 2012 by a jury of aiding and abetting an aggravated robbery. The robbery occurred at the Weston Creek Labor Club (the Club) on 27 February 2008. On 10 December 2012, the appellant was sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment. A non-parole period of three years and ten months was set.

On 21 December 2012, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the conviction. The single ground of appeal was that the conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice as the appellant was denied a fair hearing according to law.

Only one of the particulars stated in the notice of appeal of this ground was pursued at the hearing of the appeal; that the Crown failed to put to the appellant crucial matters which it then relied upon in its closing address to the jury. The written submissions filed by the appellant did not particularise the ground with any specificity. However, the written submissions filed by the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adam John Street v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] ACTCA 47
Decision Date: 15 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam John Street appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central dispute concerned whether the appellant had been denied a fair hearing according to law, as contemplated by s 37O(2)(a)(iii) of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT), due to alleged unfairness in the prosecutor's closing address to the jury.

The Court was required to determine whether the prosecutor's closing address contained material that lacked an evidentiary basis, contradicted the evidence, or introduced matters not put to the appellant. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the prosecutor made comments that belittled or ridiculed the appellant's evidence, and crucially, whether the appellant's counsel's failure to raise these concerns with the trial judge impacted the assessment of unfairness.

The Court reasoned that for an appeal based on a prosecutor's conduct to succeed, a significant degree of unfairness must be demonstrated, amounting to a miscarriage of justice. In this instance, while some aspects of the prosecutor's address might have been open to criticism, the Court found that they did not reach the threshold of unfairness required to vitiate the conviction. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had not raised objections at trial, which was a relevant factor in assessing whether the conduct complained of had, in fact, led to a miscarriage of justice. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.