Mark Anthony Munro v The Queen

[2014] HCASL 178

MARK ANTHONY MUNRO

v

THE QUEEN

[2014] HCASL 178
C2/2014

1. On 15 March 2013, the applicant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and one count of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). He was sentenced to a total period of imprisonment of 18 years with a non‑parole period of 13 years.

2. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Refshauge ACJ, Penfold and Burns JJ) against conviction and sentence.  His appeal against conviction was dismissed.  His appeal against sentence was allowed, and he was re‑sentenced to a total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 10 years.

3. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.

4. The first contention said to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal is that there is a need for this Court to resolve a difference of judicial opinion as to the application of s 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). That contention cannot be supported. The approach to the application of s 65(2)(c), as explained in R v Ambrosoli[1], was not materially different from the approach taken in Conway v The Queen[2] and Williams v The Queen[3].

   [1](2002) 55 NSWLR 603.

   [2](2000) 98 FCR 204.

   [3](2000) 119 A Crim R 490.

5. The second contention said to support the grant of special leave is whether a direction of the kind referred to in Shepherd v The Queen[4] should have been given by the trial judge in relation to evidence by a witness that he had recruited the applicant for the purpose of the robbery.  The circumstances of the case were not such as to call for a Shepherd direction.

   [4](1990) 170 CLR 573.

6. Accordingly, this application raises no question of principle which would warrant the grant of special leave.  Special leave should be refused. 

7. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
11 September 2014 P.A. Keane