Meade v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0022

ROBERT MEADE	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and WHELAN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 March 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 March 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 74

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to bring second appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 326A – Murder conviction – Fresh and compelling evidence of alibi – Whether evidence is reliable – Evidence neither credible nor a trustworthy basis for fact-finding – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	Mr B F Kissane QC with Mr T Bourbon	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA

WHELAN JA:

On 1 July 2011, Sally Brooks was savagely attacked in her home in Donvale, a suburb of Melbourne. She died of the injuries she sustained 10 days later, on 11 July 2011. In 2013, her former husband, Robert Arthur Meade, was tried and convicted of her murder. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 23 years with a non-parole period of 19 years.[1] Mr Meade appealed his conviction. That appeal was dismissed in 2015.[2]
[1]R v Meade [2013] VSC 682.
[2]Meade v The Queen [2015] VSCA 171 (‘the Appeal Judgment’).

The case against Mr Meade at trial was circumstantial. There was strong evidence of a motive. There was evidence that he had the opportunity to kill his wife in Melbourne, notwithstanding that he lived and worked in Adelaide at the time. Further, the circumstances by virtue of which that opportunity had been created were open to be seen as incriminating. There was evidence of Mr Meade’s conduct both before and after the murder which was also open to be seen as incriminating. There was no evidence, scientific or otherwise, which directly linked Mr Meade to the scene of the crime in Donvale on the day of the murder.

Mr Meade pleaded not guilty at his trial. He did not give evidence. He had made a statement to South Australian police on the night of 1 July 2011. When interviewed by Victoria Police he exercised his right to silence.

Mr Meade now applies for leave to bring a second appeal under s 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘the Act’). He contends that there is fresh and compelling evidence that should, in the interests of justice, be considered on a second appeal. The evidence is that of a fellow prisoner, who has since died, named Scott Leslie Martin. Before he died, Mr Martin swore an affidavit in which he deposed to having seen Mr Meade in the Strathbogie Ranges, far from Donvale, at the time the prosecution alleged that Ms Brooks was attacked.

The relevant legislation and the applicable principles

Section 326A of the Act relevantly provides that a second or subsequent appeal against conviction may be brought if the Court of Appeal gives the convicted person leave to…

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.

Continue reading Meade v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robert Meade v The Queen [2021] VSCA 74
Case: [2021] VSCA 74
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meade v The Queen involves the applicant's unsuccessful application for leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for murder. The applicant had previously appealed his conviction, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and now sought leave to bring a second appeal based on fresh evidence of an alibi. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the fresh evidence provided by the applicant constituted a sufficient ground for a second appeal under section 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the applicant's alibi evidence was credible and reliable, and whether it provided a trustworthy basis for fact-finding that could warrant a second appeal. The Court had to consider whether the evidence had the potential to alter the outcome of the applicant's criminal trial.

In its judgment, the Court found that the evidence provided by the applicant was not credible or reliable, and did not provide a trustworthy basis for fact-finding. The Court held that the evidence was not such that, if believed, it would probably have resulted in an acquittal. The Court found that the evidence was not of such a nature as to justify the grant of leave to bring a second appeal. The Court emphasised that the evidence needed to be both credible and reliable, and that there needed to be a reasonable prospect that the second appeal would be successful. The Court concluded that the applicant had not satisfied these criteria.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to bring a second appeal. The Court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders