R v Brown

Case [2012] QCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2012] QCA 155

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Wayne Gary
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 294 of 2011
DC No 134 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – MATTERS AVAILABLE TO JURY IN JURY ROOM – where after verdict delivered and jury discharged a one page document was found in the jury room – where document outlined the difference between a summary and indictable offence – where appellant submits a juror had conducted independent legal research – whether document represents a material irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of s 668E(1)

Folbigg v R [2007] NSWCCA 371, cited
Martin v R (2010) 28 VR 579; [2010] VSCA 153, cited
Qing An v R [2007] NSWCCA 53, cited
R v Bates [1985] 1 NZLR 326; [1984] NZCA 110, cited
R v Cogley [2000] VSCA 231, cited
R v Domican (No 3) (1990) 46 A Crim R 428, cited
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377, cited
R v Gillespie, unreported, Court of Appeal, New Zealand, No 227 of 1989, 7 February 1989, cited
R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; [2003] NSWCCA 406, cited
R v Marsland, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60263 of 1990, 17 July 1991, cited
R v Rudkowsky unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60646 of 1992, 15 December 1992, cited
R v Skaf (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; [2004] NSWCCA 37, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Woodford, with A P Simpson, for the appellant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

K M Splatt & Associates for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the order he proposes.

  1. GOTTERSON JA: Upon trial in the District Court, the appellant was convicted of one count of entering premises and stealing (Count 1); one count of wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor vehicle (Count 2); and one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence therein (Count 3).  Verdicts were delivered on 10 October 2011.  On 21 October he was sentenced on each of Counts 1 and 3 to imprisonment for a period of three years and six months, to be suspended after serving a period of 21 months for an operational period of four years.  The sentence on Count 2 is imprisonment for a period of 21 months.  Imprisonment under all Orders is to be served concurrently. 

  1. The…

Continue reading R v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brown [2012] QCA 155
Case
[2012] QCA 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Brown, appealed against his conviction for criminal offences, contending that an irregularity during the trial process warranted a new trial or an appeal against his conviction. The irregularity pertained to a one-page document discovered in the jury room after the jury had been discharged, which detailed the distinctions between summary and indictable offences. Brown argued that the presence of this document constituted an irregularity that led to a miscarriage of justice, as it may have influenced the jury's understanding of the charges against him.

The central legal issue was whether the discovery of the document in the jury room constituted a material irregularity under s 668E(1) of the relevant legislation. The court had to determine if the document's presence was significant enough to potentially impact the fairness of the trial and result in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court examined whether the document's content suggested that a juror had engaged in independent legal research, which could have further compromised the integrity of the jury's decision-making process.

In assessing the impact of the discovered document, the court noted that the content was common legal knowledge and did not directly pertain to the specific facts or evidence of the case. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that any juror had used the document to conduct independent legal research. Consequently, the court concluded that the document did not represent a material irregularity that warranted a new trial or an appeal against Brown's conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court. The conviction remained in place, and Brown's appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.