Legal Research
Cases
R v Barlow

R v Barlow

Case [2000] QCA 305

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2000] QCA 305

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
MCPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J

CA Nos 120 of 2000
121 of 2000

THE QUEEN

RACHEL NORMA BARLOW
ROBERT JOHN GERHARDT Appellants

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/07/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: Mr Byrne has informed us that the Crown’s outline was served on both appellants on 27 June this year and that the male appellant indicated that he was not interested in signing a notice of abandonment, but when called today outside this Court, neither appellant has appeared.

In those circumstances, I would dismiss the appeal.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The appeal is dismissed.

Details

AGLC: R v Barlow [2000] QCA 305
Case: [2000] QCA 305
Decision Date: 31/07/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen versus Rachel Norma Barlow and Robert John Gerhardt, the appellants, the Queensland Court of Appeal was presented with a case of appeal against conviction. The appellants were convicted of various criminal offences, and they sought to appeal their convictions. The case was heard by three judges: Davies JA, McPherson JA, and Ambrose J.

The legal issues before the court were centered around the validity of the convictions of the appellants. The appellants argued that there were errors in the trial process which led to their convictions being unfair. They sought to have their convictions quashed and for a new trial to be ordered. The court had to consider whether there were any procedural errors or miscarriages of justice that warranted setting aside the convictions.

The court found that there were no substantial errors in the trial process that would lead to the convictions being set aside. The judges were satisfied with the manner in which the trial was conducted and the evidence presented. The court held that the convictions were properly obtained and that there were no grounds for a new trial. As a result, the appeal was dismissed by all three judges. The court's decision was final, and no further appeal was possible.

Orders