R v Brennan - [1998] QCA 163

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 163
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No.99 of 1998
Brisbane [R v. Brennan]

THE QUEEN

GRAHAM PAUL BRENNAN

Appellant

McPherson JA
Thomas J
Ambrose J

Judgment delivered 26 June 1998.

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

(1)	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED.
(2)	VERDICT BELOW SET ASIDE.
(3)	NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - conviction - armed robbery - actual violence - deprivation of liberty - misdirection as to the jury’s ability to infer guilt - failure to call a witness - circumstantial case against accused - evidence from which jury might have inferred that accused committed illegal acts - lies by the accused.
Jones v. Dunkel (1958-59) 101 CLR 298. R. v. Buckland [1977] 2 NSWLR 452. Weissensteiner v. R. (1993) 178 CLR 217. R v. Lucas [1981] 1 QB 720. R. v. Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234. Edwards v. The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193. R. v. Small (1994) 33 NSWLR 575. R. v. Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88. R. v. May [1982] Qd R. 456.
Counsel:	Mr J Hunter for the appellant. Mr D Meredith for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	4 June 1998.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 99 of 1998

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.
Ambrose J.

[R. v. Brennan]

T H E Q U E E N

GRAHAM PAUL BRENNAN Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 26 June 1998

I agree with Ambrose J., essentially for the reasons he has given, that there should be a

new trial.

This was not a matter in which a direction along the lines authorised in Weissensteiner v. The Queen (1993) 178 C.L.R. 217 was appropriate. It is not one where the absence of explanation from the accused strengthened any inference that he was one of those involved in the robbery or in depriving the victims of their liberty. On the contrary, in the present case, the appellant himself gave evidence at his trial explaining or suggesting how his palm print or prints might have found their way on to the door of the safe in which the robbery victims were locked. The result was to leave the jury with only one question, which was whether the explanation he gave in evidence raised in their minds a reasonable doubt about his guilt of the offences charged.

Since the issue so raised was essentially one of credibility rather than inference, the jury might well have wondered why the appellant had failed to call his wife as a witness to confirm the truth of his statement that he had previously been in the office in which the safe was located on which his prints were later found. It is possible to think of several reasons, some consistent with…

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 Brennan

Details

AGLC: R v Brennan [1998] QCA 163
Case: [1998] QCA 163
Decision Date: 26/06/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Brennan, the respondent, Brennan, faced charges related to an armed robbery where actual violence was not employed, but the accused was alleged to have deprived the victims of their liberty. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury concerning their ability to infer guilt based on circumstantial evidence and whether there was a failure to call a critical witness that could have influenced the outcome.

The High Court examined whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury about inferring guilt from circumstantial evidence were correct and sufficient. The court considered whether the evidence provided a basis for the jury to reasonably infer that Brennan was involved in the crime, despite the absence of direct evidence. Additionally, the court assessed whether the failure to call a particular witness, who could have provided exculpatory evidence, was a material omission that might have affected the jury's decision.

The High Court determined that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury on the ability to infer guilt from circumstantial evidence, as the evidence presented allowed for such an inference. However, the court found that the failure to call a particular witness who could have provided an alibi was significant. This omission was considered material, potentially affecting the jury's verdict. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the errors warranted the overturning of Brennan's conviction. The Court ordered a retrial to ensure that all relevant evidence, including the potentially exculpatory testimony, could be presented to the jury.

Orders