SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Box & Martin [2001] QCA 272 PARTIES: R
v
BOX, Gary
(appellant)
MARTIN, Robert Francis
(appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 304 of 2000
CA No 307 of 2000
SC No 400 of 2000DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 20 July 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 March 2001 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Moynihan J and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Moynihan J and Dutney J concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissentingORDER: Appeals against conviction dismissed CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – where application for separate trials rejected – where statements made by co-accused highly prejudicial to accused – where evidence in question is discreet and appropriate direction given – where assumption that jury follows directions – no miscarriage of justice.
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INTOXICATION – where accused on trial for murder – whether misdirection - where trial judge phrased direction in terms of whether the accused had the capacity to form the requisite intent as opposed to whether they had formed the intent - s 28 Criminal Code – no misdirection when read in context of summing up.
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLIRY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – AIDER AND ABETTOR – whether failure to give direction that intoxication or stupefaction are matters which could be taken into account in deciding whether an aider under s 7 Criminal Code had the necessary awareness of the committers intention to kill – where the effect of intoxication on awareness is a matter for common sense experience and within the ordinary knowledge of the jury – where no specific direction is required.
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – GENERALLY – where lies by accused – whether adequate direction given as to the use to be made of the lies with respect to a consciousness of guilt – where adequate direction given.
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – GENERALLY – where lies by accused – whether no particular standard of proof applied to a finding that a lie was evidence of a consciousness of guilt
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – GENERALLY – where misdirection with respect to suggestion that the accused bore the onus of establishing an innocent explanation for prior lies (false statements) – application of the proviso in the context of an otherwise overwhelming case against the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTION TO JURY – WHERE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER – whether failure to issue direction that jury could convict on the…
Continue reading R v Box & Martin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Box & Martin [2001] QCA 272
- Case
- [2001] QCA 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in this case included whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the matters of intent, intoxication, and the use of lies as evidence of a consciousness of guilt. The respondents argued that the trial judge's direction on intent was misleading, and that the jury should not have been left to assume that they would follow the directions given. Additionally, the respondents contended that the trial judge failed to adequately address the impact of intoxication on the ability to form the requisite intent, and that there was a misdirection concerning the onus of proof in relation to the accused's lies. Finally, the respondents argued that the failure to provide a direction on the alternative verdict of manslaughter amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court found that there was no misdirection by the trial judge. The court held that the direction on intent, while perhaps not perfectly phrased, was clear enough when read in the context of the summing up, and did not mislead the jury. The court also found that there was no need for a specific direction on the impact of intoxication on intent, as this was a matter within the ordinary knowledge of the jury. The court held that the direction on the accused's lies was adequate, and that there was no misdirection concerning the onus of proof. Finally, the court held that the failure to give a specific direction on the alternative verdict of manslaughter did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder.
The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction, and the convictions of the respondents were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals against conviction 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.