R v Badenoch - [2004] VSCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No. 183 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v.

FARREN DEACON BADENOCH

---

JUDGES:

CHARLES, BATT and VINCENT, JJ.A.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

19 April 2004

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

27 May 2004

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2004] VSCA 95

---
Criminal Law – Conviction – Murder – Challenge to jury array – Whether applicant unfit to plead or unable to instruct legal representatives – Bias application against trial judge – Johnson v. Johnson (2000) 201 C.L.R. 488 – Admissibility of various parts of record of interview – Whether applicant in fit state to be interviewed – Alleged breach of duty by Crown to call all relevant and material witnesses – Alleged incompetent legal representation – Whether verdict of jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory – Application dismissed.
---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown Mr G.J.C. Silbert
K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Applicant Case and argument presented in writing by applicant.
CHARLES, J.A.:
1 The applicant chose to present his arguments for this appeal in writing, by submission of three large volumes of material containing in excess of 800 pages of submissions and evidence which were considered by the Court in addition to a lengthy transcript of the trial and the voir dire. The applicant also chose not to appear in person or by legal representative at the hearing of the appeal. Mr Silbert appeared for the Crown in this Court. With his assistance the Court gave consideration to each of the applicant’s grounds of appeal during argument which lasted nearly a full hearing day.

2 I have had the considerable advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Vincent, J.A. I agree with the reasons his Honour gives for dismissing the application for leave to appeal against conviction. The trial was heard before a judge of long experience in criminal matters, as also was counsel who appeared for the applicant. Since the applicant has made many complaints as to the conduct of both the judge and his counsel, I should say that I entirely agree with Vincent, J.A. that not one of these complaints has been shown to be justified.

3 The applicant also submits in various ways that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory and that he should have been acquitted. Having carefully reviewed the evidence at trial, I agree with Vincent, J.A. that the verdict of guilty of murder was open to the jury and was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.

4 The application should be dismissed.

BATT, J.A.:
5 I concur in the reasons for judgment of Vincent, J.A., which I have had the considerable benefit of reading. Besides revealing his Honour’s mastery of the mass of material in this case, they demonstrate why this application must be dismissed.

VINCENT, J.A.:
6 The applicant was, in October 2001, found guilty by the jury empanelled on his trial, of the murder of his sister, Amalie Margaret Badenoch, at Mildura South, on 1 March 2000.

7 After hearing a plea…

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 R v Badenoch

Details

AGLC: R v Badenoch [2004] VSCA 95
Case: [2004] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 27 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Badenoch involved a conviction for murder and raised a number of legal challenges. The applicant contested his conviction on several grounds, including the fitness of the jury array, his own fitness to plead or ability to instruct legal representatives, potential bias against the trial judge, the admissibility of parts of a police interview record, the Crown's duty to call all relevant and material witnesses, and claims of incompetent legal representation. The application was dismissed by the court.

The court had to determine whether the applicant was unfit to plead or unable to instruct legal representatives, whether there was bias on the part of the trial judge, whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if there was a breach of the Crown's duty to call all relevant and material witnesses. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's legal representation was competent and whether the admission of certain parts of the police interview record was appropriate.

The court found that the applicant's challenges did not succeed. It held that the jury array was properly constituted and that the applicant was fit to plead and capable of instructing legal representatives. The court dismissed claims of bias against the trial judge, finding that there was no evidence to support such a claim. It also concluded that the jury's verdict was safe and satisfactory, and that the Crown had fulfilled its duty to call all relevant and material witnesses. The court further found that the applicant's legal representation was competent, and that the parts of the police interview record admitted into evidence were properly so.

The application was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The court found no merit in the applicant's claims and rejected all grounds of appeal.

Orders