R v D'Arcy

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.