R v D'Arcy

Case [2003] QCA 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v D'Arcy [2003] QCA 124

PARTIES:

R
v
D'ARCY, William Theodore
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 388 of 2002
DC No 3096 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring with the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY - where appellant former member of Parliament - where at time of trial, appellant in gaol having been convicted of indecent dealing - where previous trial received great deal of adverse publicity - where trial judge gave direction to the jury that they should ignore media publicity - where alleged offences occurred more than 30 years before trial - whether appellant was capable of receiving a fair trial because of these matters - whether permanent stay of proceedings should have been ordered

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURIES - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant submitted that because of pre-trial publicity and the prejudice this may have caused in minds of jurors, the jurors ought to have been questioned in accordance with s 47 Jury Act 1995 (Qld) - where substantial time lapsed between worst adverse publicity and commencement of trial - where trial judge told jurors that if they considered that they could not act impartially they should tell him - whether special reasons existed requiring inquiry of jurors pursuant to s 47 Jury Act 1995 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - OTHER CASES - where complainant's cousin gave evidence of incident which did not constitute counts charged and where complainant could not recall it occurring - whether such evidence supported that of complainant and should have been admitted by trial judge

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where jury returned verdict of guilty on one count and not guilty on another - whether such verdicts were inconsistent and insupportable

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 47

R v Lewis [1994] 1 QdR 613, cited

R v Long [2003] QCA 77; CA No 104 of 2002 and CA No 81 of 2002, 28 February 2003, cited

Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94, considered

R v Massey [1997] 1 QdR 404, cited

COUNSEL:

A F Maher for appellant
B G Campbell for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lake Lawyers (Forest Lake) for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

  1. DAVIES JA:  The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 14 November 2002 on one count of…

Continue reading R v D'Arcy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v D'Arcy [2003] QCA 124
Case
[2003] QCA 124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, D'Arcy, a former member of Parliament, appealed against his conviction for indecent dealing with a child. The case came before the court following a trial where the appellant was in custody after having been convicted of another offence. The alleged offences had occurred over 30 years before the trial, and there had been considerable adverse publicity surrounding the previous trial. The appellant argued that the extensive pre-trial publicity and his incarceration would prevent him from receiving a fair trial. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge should have questioned the jurors about potential bias due to the publicity, and that certain evidence should have been admitted to support the complainant's testimony.

The court was required to decide whether the appellant could receive a fair trial given the pre-trial publicity and his incarceration. It also needed to determine if the trial judge should have inquired into the jurors' impartiality in line with section 47 of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld). Furthermore, the court considered whether certain evidence should have been admitted to corroborate the complainant's account and whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and insupportable.

The court found that the appellant had not been denied a fair trial by the pre-trial publicity or his incarceration, as the trial judge had given appropriate directions to the jury. The court concluded that there were no special reasons to inquire into the jurors' impartiality under section 47 of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), especially since there had been a substantial time lapse between the adverse publicity and the trial. Regarding the evidence, the court held that the complainant's cousin's testimony, which did not directly relate to the charges, should not have been admitted. However, the court found that the admission of this evidence did not affect the overall fairness of the trial. Finally, the court held that the jury's verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were not insupportable.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

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.