Knight v The Queen

Case [2013] QCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Knight & Ors v The Queen [2013] QCA 144

PARTIES:

MARK DEMPSEY KNIGHT
(first appellant)
WESLEY ROBERT WILLIAMS
(second appellant)
WAYNE THOMAS ROBERTSON
(third appellant)
v
THE QUEEN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12358 of 2012
SC No 188 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2013

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Boddice and Jackson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellants were convicted of murder of another inmate following a retrial – where the appellants’ criminal histories were only tendered during the sentencing hearing – where no member of the jury was present in Court during the sentencing hearing – where, 19 days after verdict, a jury member told his hairdresser that the outcome of the trial “wouldn’t make a difference as they were already serving life terms or long terms of imprisonment” – where details of the appellants’ criminal histories were available online during the course of the trial – where the trial judge repeatedly directed the jury not to make investigations of their own – where the appellants’ criminal histories were widely broadcast after sentence – where the primary judge refused the appellants’ application to investigate suspected jury bias, fraud or offence pursuant to s 70(7) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) – whether there are grounds to suspect that the juror may have been guilty of bias, fraud or offence – whether an investigation of the suspected bias, fraud or offence should be authorised

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 69A, s 70(7)

Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross & Ors (2012) 87 ALJR 131; [2012] HCA 56, considered
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26, considered
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited
Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942; [1969] 3 All ER 1626; [1969] UKPC 26, considered
R v Ferguson; Ex parte Attorney-General(Qld) (2008) 186 A Crim R 483; [2008] QCA 227, cited
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16, considered
R v Knight & Ors[2010] QCA 372, related
R v Knight & Ors [2012] QSC 397, related
R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, cited
R v Martin & King[1999] QCA 366, considered
R v Sewell [1994] QCA 586, cited
R v VPH, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, CA No 60599 of 1993, 4 March 1994, considered

COUNSEL:

G McGuire for the first appellant
P Davis SC, with D Lynch, for the second appellant
J Fraser for the third appellant
D C Boyle for…

Continue reading Knight v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Knight & Ors v The Queen [2013] QCA 144
Case
[2013] QCA 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Knight and another, were convicted of the murder of another inmate and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed to the court on the basis that their criminal histories were only disclosed to the jury during the sentencing hearing, a process that occurred without the jury's presence. Furthermore, it came to light that a jury member had made comments to a third party regarding the case, suggesting that the outcome would not affect the appellants as they were already serving long sentences. The appellants argued that the trial judge should have investigated potential bias, fraud, or offence by the juror under s 70(7) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld).

The court examined whether there were grounds to suspect the juror of bias, fraud, or offence. It noted that the juror's comments, made 19 days after the verdict, did not necessarily indicate bias but rather a personal opinion about the relevance of the outcome given the appellants' prior sentences. The court also considered the fact that the appellants' criminal histories were available online and that the trial judge had explicitly instructed the jury not to conduct their own investigations. Given these circumstances, the court found no reasonable suspicion of bias, fraud, or offence by the juror. The court further held that the primary judge was correct in refusing to investigate the suspected bias, fraud, or offence.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The court concluded that the trial judge's handling of the case was proper and that there were no grounds to suspect the juror of any misconduct that would warrant an investigation under s 70(7) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.