Munro v The Queen

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated robbery and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appellant, Munro, appealed against both his convictions and his sentence. The primary grounds of appeal related to the admission of evidence, specifically a statement made by a cleaner, and alleged misdirections by the trial judge to the jury concerning witness unreliability, circumstantial evidence, and the hearsay nature of the cleaner's statement. Munro also argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting the cleaner's statement under section 65(2)(c) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT), considering its reliability and whether its probative value was outweighed by the danger of prejudice under section 137 of the same Act. Further issues included whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury regarding the unreliability of a witness involved in the offence, the nature of circumstantial evidence, and the hearsay statement. The Court also had to consider whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or based on an aggravating feature not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the cleaner's statement, the Court found that its admission under section 65(2)(c) was justified as it related to a system of work regularly repeated, making it likely to be remembered, and the cleaner had no personal interest in the trial that would outweigh the inclination to avoid criminal prosecution. The Court also held that the trial judge did not err in ruling that the probative value of the statement was not outweighed by prejudice, noting that the author was deceased and therefore unavailable for cross-examination, but that the jury had been given judicial directions and counsel's addresses to mitigate this. The Court found no misdirection in the jury instructions concerning witness unreliability, circumstantial evidence, or the cleaner's statement, noting that warnings about unreliability were discretionary and no request for redirection was made. The verdict was deemed safe and satisfactory, as the evidence of the unreliable witness was supported by other evidence, and the jury had been adequately directed. The appeal against convictions was dismissed. However, the appeal against sentence was upheld, with the Court re-sentencing Munro to a total of 15 years imprisonment for robbery and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, with a non-parole period of 10 years.