SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Martin v The Queen; Martin v The Queen |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 38 |
Hearing Dates: | 12 February 2014; 5 May 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 13 August 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge, Burns and Ross JJ |
Decision: | The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences against the person – murder. APPEAL – Appeal to the Court of Appeal – appeal against jury verdict and sentence – evidence – judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury following a non-responsive disclosure by a witness that he met the accused in custody – whether the trial judge erred in admitting graphic photographs – whether the trial judge erred in admitting tendency evidence of the accused’s criminal behaviour – whether the trial judge erred in admitting tendency evidence of the non-aggressiveness of the deceased where no notice was given of intention to adduce such evidence – whether the trial judge erred in admitting listening device evidence where that evidence was obtained in consequence of an unlawful arrest of the accused – jury directions and closing submissions – whether the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to make closing submissions regarding conclusions that could be drawn in relation to blood spatter evidence – whether the trial judge gave an inaccurate summary of the evidence in jury directions – appeal dismissed. APPEAL – Appeal to the Court of Appeal – Crown appeal against sentence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider or properly consider the relative objective seriousness of the offence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to take proper account of sentencing practice – whether the trial judge erred in failing to take proper account of sentencing practice in setting a ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period – whether the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the rehabilitative and protective functions of parole – whether the trial judge made findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 196, 203, 212 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Pt 1C, s 23A (6) |
Cases Cited: | Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 |
Continue reading Martin v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Martin v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 38
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several grounds of appeal. These included whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after a witness disclosed that he had met the accused in custody, whether graphic photographs and tendency evidence of the accused's criminal behaviour were wrongly admitted, and whether tendency evidence regarding the deceased's non-aggressiveness was admissible without prior notice. Further issues related to the admission of listening device evidence obtained following an allegedly unlawful arrest, the Crown's closing submissions on blood spatter evidence, and alleged inaccuracies in the trial judge's summary of evidence to the jury. The Crown's appeal against sentence raised questions about the objective seriousness of the offence, sentencing practice, the ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period, and the consideration of parole's rehabilitative and protective functions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on the admissibility of evidence or jury directions. Similarly, the Crown's appeal against sentence was dismissed, with the Court finding that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors and sentencing principles.
Consequently, both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
The appeal against sentence is 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.