Mark Anthony Munro v The Queen - [2014] HCASL 178

MARK ANTHONY MUNRO
v
THE QUEEN
[2014] HCASL 178
C2/2014

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.
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.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.
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.
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.
Accordingly, this application raises no question of principle which would warrant the grant of special leave. Special leave should be refused.
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

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 Mark Anthony Munro 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: [2014] HCASL 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mark Anthony Munro versus The Queen, the applicant, Munro, sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction, which was initially heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Munro was convicted of aggravated robbery and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years. This sentence was subsequently reduced to 15 years with a non-parole period of 10 years by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The legal issues before the court involved two primary contentions. The first concerned whether the court should resolve a difference in judicial opinion regarding the application of section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The second issue pertained to whether the trial judge should have given a direction akin to that in Shepherd v The Queen, in relation to evidence that a witness had recruited Munro for the robbery. The court examined these contentions to determine if special leave to appeal should be granted.

The High Court concluded that the first contention did not warrant the grant of special leave as the approach to section 65(2)(c) was consistent across the cited cases. The second contention was also deemed insufficient for special leave, as the circumstances did not warrant a Shepherd direction. Consequently, the court held that no question of principle existed that would justify granting special leave. Therefore, the application for special leave was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal an order to this effect.

Orders