Martin v the Queen

Martin v the Queen was a case heard by the court where the applicant sought to appeal against his conviction. The applicant was convicted of various offences, including the supply of drugs, and had argued that he acted under duress. The jury was discharged, and the applicant sought a new trial based on several grounds, including an alleged error in the judge's ruling on the defence of duress and the cross-examination of the applicant. The applicant also claimed that there was an improper search of the jury room, in defiance of the judge’s directions, and that printouts found in the jury room after the jury was discharged breached s 78A of the Juries Act 2000.

The court was required to determine whether the judge erred in ruling that there was no evidence to support the defence of duress. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the cross-examination of the applicant was permissible in suggesting that he was accusing other witnesses of lying. The court also had to decide if the search of the jury room was in defiance of the judge’s directions and if it breached the provisions of s 78A of the Juries Act 2000. Finally, the court had to assess whether these alleged irregularities warranted a new trial.

The court found that there was no error in the judge's ruling on the defence of duress, as the evidence did not support it. The court held that the cross-examination did not improperly suggest that the applicant was accusing other witnesses of lying. Regarding the search of the jury room, the court concluded that there was no evidence of a breach of the judge’s directions or of s 78A of the Juries Act 2000. The court determined that the alleged irregularities did not necessitate a new trial. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

No further orders were made by the court.