R v Belford & Bound

Case [2011] QCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Belford & Bound [2011] QCA 43

PARTIES:

R
v
BELFORD, Lochlan-Lee Brett
(appellant)

R
v
BOUND, Raymond John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 327 of 2009
CA No 335 of 2009
SC No 234 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made in CA No 327 of 2009, Fraser and White JJA concurring as to the order made in CA No 335 of 2009, Holmes JA dissenting

ORDER:

In CA No 327 of 2009: The appeal is dismissed.

In CA No 335 of 2009: The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – FRESH EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellants convicted of murder – where there was evidence that the deceased had suffered blunt force trauma to the head – where appellants argued that expert opinion evidence given at a committal hearing and through a written report differed from evidence given at trial – where trial judge found that the difference between the evidence was the extent of the probability that the blunt force trauma caused unconsciousness and death – where appellants wished to adduce fresh evidence disputing this evidence – whether competing expert evidence fresh evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the change in expert evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred on the basis that the interests of justice required an adjournment to enable contrary expert evidence to be adduced at trial

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant, Bound, interviewed by police – where Bound made it clear that he did not wish to speak further to police  without first receiving legal advice – where police arranged a plan to introduce a covert police operative to Bound’s cell – where police conduct undertaken in light of an apprehension that Bound, wished to exercise his right to silence – where Bound, made admissions to the covert police officer – whether the admissions were elicited – whether the appellant, Bound’s, right to silence was impugned – whether the trial judge erred in law in ruling that the record of conversation between the appellant, Bound, and the covert police officer was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant, Bound, had made non-recorded admissions to police officers – where the police officers sought to confirm and record these admissions – where, in confirming what Bound had said, the police officer put four distinct propositions to him – where the four propositions received a single affirmative answer – where the…

Continue reading R v Belford & Bound

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Belford & Bound [2011] QCA 43
Case
[2011] QCA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Belford & Bound involved the appeal of two individuals convicted of murder, Belford and Bound. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility and reliability of various forms of evidence, including expert opinion, covert police interactions, and hearsay statements, as well as the trial judge's discretion in handling these issues. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial had been conducted fairly and whether the convictions could stand.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the appellants' proposed expert evidence could be considered fresh evidence warranting a new trial, the admissibility of covert police recordings and statements made by Bound, and the reliability of hearsay statements made by the deceased's relatives. The court also evaluated the trial judge's decisions regarding the exclusion or admission of certain evidence, such as the close-up photographs of the deceased's injuries and the probative value of the criminal history of Belford's uncle. Additionally, the court examined the trial judge's handling of Bound's request to give evidence after electing not to do so.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed expert evidence did not constitute fresh evidence that would warrant a new trial, and the differences in expert opinion were not such that they would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the covert police recordings were properly admitted as they were not obtained improperly and did not violate Bound's right to silence. The hearsay statements were deemed reliable and properly admitted under section 93B of the Evidence Act. The court further ruled that the trial judge did not err in excluding certain evidence, such as the close-up photographs of the deceased's injuries and the criminal history of Belford's uncle, as their probative value was slight. Finally, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to allow Bound to give evidence after electing not to do so, finding that Bound had not demonstrated that such an order was in the interests of justice.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, affirming the convictions of Belford and Bound. The court found that the trial had been conducted fairly and that the evidence was properly admitted and weighed. The decisions of the trial judge were upheld, and no new trial was warranted.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 327 of 2009: The appeal is dismissed.

In CA No 335 of 2009: The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.