R v Bradley - [2013] QCA 163

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bradley [2013] QCA 163

PARTIES:

R
v
BRADLEY, Laith Andrew
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 287 of 2012
SC No 91 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2013

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. That in relation to the convictions on counts 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the appeal be dismissed;

2. That the appeal against conviction in relation to counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be upheld and the convictions set aside, and that there be retrial of the appellant on those counts.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL COUNTS – the appellant was charged with various offences, including trafficking and possession of drugs, possession of a weapon and two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice – the appellant was convicted of some offences by a jury and acquitted in respect of others – whether the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and possession of a machine gun were improperly joined with the drugs charges and thereby constituted a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – a prosecution witness was declared hostile after giving different oral evidence to an earlier statement she had purportedly made to police – the witness denied having made the earlier statement – the statement was not directly admitted into evidence, but parts of it were disclosed in the evidence of a police officer – the Judge directed the jury in accordance with s 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (the Act) but failed to direct the jury as to the weight to be attached to the purported statement, which was a requirement of s 102 of the Act – whether the Judge’s failure to direct the jury on the weight to be attached to the purported statement in light of other evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – INCONSISTENT, AMBIGUOUS AND MEANINGLESS VERDICTS – OTHER OFFENCES – the jury acquitted the appellant of attempting to pervert the course of justice where it was alleged by a witness that the appellant had pressured him to claim possession of certain drugs – the jury rejected this evidence and acquitted the applicant of that count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – the Judge instructed the jury that they could convict the appellant in respect of the related drug possession charge only if satisfied that the drugs did not belong to the witness – whether the jury’s acquittal of the…

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 Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley [2013] QCA 163
Case: [2013] QCA 163
Decision Date: 24 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bradley involved an appellant who had been charged with various offences including trafficking and possession of drugs, possession of a weapon, and two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice. After a trial by jury, the appellant was convicted of some offences but acquitted of others. The appellant appealed against his convictions on several counts, arguing that the trial judge had misdirected or failed to direct the jury on certain legal issues, which led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court had to determine whether the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and possession of a machine gun were improperly joined with the drugs charges, whether the judge's failure to direct the jury on the weight to be attached to a witness's earlier statement constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether the jury's acquittal on one count was inconsistent with its conviction on another related count. The court considered whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the drug possession charge were appropriate and whether the jury's doubts about a witness's reliability should have affected their consideration of other counts.

The court found that while some of the appellant's convictions should stand, the failure of the trial judge to properly direct the jury on the weight to be attached to a witness's earlier statement did constitute a miscarriage of justice in relation to some counts. The court also found that the acquittal on one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice did not necessarily render the conviction on a related drug possession charge inconsistent, but the trial judge's directions on this point could have been clearer. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in relation to some counts but upheld the appeal and ordered a retrial in respect of others.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed in relation to certain counts, while the appeal against convictions on other counts was upheld. The convictions on these counts were set aside, and the appellant was to be retried on those counts. This decision highlights the importance of proper jury directions and the need for consistency in the jury's consideration of related charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That in relation to the convictions on counts 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the appeal be dismissed;

2. That the appeal against conviction in relation to counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be upheld and the convictions set aside, and that there be retrial of the appellant on those counts.

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.

CITATION:	R v Bradley [2013] QCA 163
PARTIES:	R v BRADLEY, Laith Andrew (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 287 of 2012 SC No 91 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2013
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. That in relation to the convictions on counts 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the appeal be dismissed; 2. That the appeal against conviction in relation to counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be upheld and the convictions set aside, and that there be retrial of the appellant on those counts.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL COUNTS – the appellant was charged with various offences, including trafficking and possession of drugs, possession of a weapon and two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice – the appellant was convicted of some offences by a jury and acquitted in respect of others – whether the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and possession of a machine gun were improperly joined with the drugs charges and thereby constituted a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – a prosecution witness was declared hostile after giving different oral evidence to an earlier statement she had purportedly made to police – the witness denied having made the earlier statement – the statement was not directly admitted into evidence, but parts of it were disclosed in the evidence of a police officer – the Judge directed the jury in accordance with s 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (the Act) but failed to direct the jury as to the weight to be attached to the purported statement, which was a requirement of s 102 of the Act – whether the Judge’s failure to direct the jury on the weight to be attached to the purported statement in light of other evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – INCONSISTENT, AMBIGUOUS AND MEANINGLESS VERDICTS – OTHER OFFENCES – the jury acquitted the appellant of attempting to pervert the course of justice where it was alleged by a witness that the appellant had pressured him to claim possession of certain drugs – the jury rejected this evidence and acquitted the applicant of that count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – the Judge instructed the jury that they could convict the appellant in respect of the related drug possession charge only if satisfied that the drugs did not belong to the witness – whether the jury’s acquittal of the…