R v Armstrong

The appellant, Armstrong, appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including misdirection and non-direction, improper admission or rejection of evidence, and irregularities in relation to the jury. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Armstrong argued that he was wrongly deprived of the opportunity to conduct his own cross-examination of the complainant, that he was wrongly charged under s 359E of the Criminal Code, and that the complainant was incorrectly classified as a protected witness under s 21N of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The trial judge had no discretion to order otherwise, and Armstrong's argument misunderstood the effect of s 359E.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were clear and accurate, and that the prosecutor's comments regarding the charge under s 359E were not inaccurate or misleading. The court also found that the evidence regarding the appellant's identification was irrelevant as there was no issue about the identification of the appellant at trial. The court further found that the trial judge correctly explained the necessary elements of conduct constituting unlawful stalking, and that it was open to the jury to conclude whether the detriment suffered reasonably arose in the circumstances. The appellant's argument that the facilities in the jury room were inadequate was not substantiated by any evidence.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that there were no grounds for setting aside the conviction or sentence. The court held that the trial was conducted fairly and without error, and that the verdict was properly reached. The conviction and sentence were upheld.