Grey v The Queen

Case [2022] ACTCA 2

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:  Grey v The Queen
Citation:  [2022] ACTCA 2
Hearing Date:  20 May 2021
Decision Date:  7 February 2022
Before:  Loukas-Karlsson J, Wigney J and McWilliam AJ
Decision:  [367]

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – appeal against conviction and sentence – application to adduce further evidence – where evidence is new but counsel’s conduct of trial is in issue on appeal – whether verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory – whether sentence manifestly

excessive
Legislation Cited:  Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5412
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54, 60, 67
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 19AB, 19AC
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 44
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 271.7
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37O, 37J, 37N
Cases Cited:  AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; 198 CLR 111
AH v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 152
Ali v The Queen [2005] HCA 8; 79 ALJR 662
Alkhair v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 4; 255 A Crim R 419
Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372
Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38
Bartlett v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 60
Baghdadi v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 212
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253
CLR 58
Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420
BI v The Queen (No 2) [2018] ACTCA 11
Bright v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 39
Browne v The Queen [2006] ACTCA 15
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Cavanagh v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 174
Cramp v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 305
Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen [2002] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA
237; 53 VR 546
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 32; 265 CLR 215
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; 86 ALJR 1086
ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10
Einfeld v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 87; 200 A Crim R 1
Featherstone v The Queen; Bloxsome v The Queen [2020]
ACTCA 33
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31
Gore v R; Hunter v R [2010] NSWCCA 330
Grey v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 6
Hampton v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 278; 208 A Crim R 478
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR
520
Hillier v R [2008] ACTCA 3
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hoyle v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 42; 39 FLR 11
Inge v The Queen [1999] HCA 55; 199 CLR 295
Jakaj v Kinnane [2020] ACTCA 19
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Jurj v The Queen [2016] VSCA 57
Kamali v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 186
KLM v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 73; 194…

Continue reading Grey v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grey v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 2
Case
[2022] ACTCA 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grey appealed against his conviction and sentence for an offence. The appeal concerned an application to adduce further evidence, with the central issue being whether the conduct of counsel at trial rendered the verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal was heard by Loukas-Karlsson and Wigney JJ, with McWilliam AJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the further evidence sought to be adduced should be admitted, and if so, whether the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory in light of that evidence and the conduct of the trial. The Court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal and the test for determining whether a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. It was held that the admission of fresh evidence on appeal is exceptional and requires the evidence to be credible, relevant, and likely to have had a significant impact on the jury's verdict. The Court applied the principles established in *M v The Queen* regarding the safety and satisfactoriness of verdicts, considering whether there was a significant possibility that the jury would have acquitted the appellant had the fresh evidence been available or had the trial been conducted differently. The Court also applied the principles for reviewing sentences for manifest excess.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

[367]

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.