R v Ford

Case [2006] QCA 142

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ford [2006] QCA 142

PARTIES:

R
v
FORD, Garry Robin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 260 of 2004
SC No 407 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA, Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane JA and Douglas J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting in part

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL CONDUCT OF CASE - where appellant convicted of various sexual offences, and offences relating to the supply of drugs, involving five different teenage boys - where counsel for appellant argued that a Markuleski direction was necessary  to properly allow the jury to determine the weight to be given to each complainant's evidence in relation to each separate count alleged against the appellant - whether the absence of a Markuleski direction made the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL CONDUCT OF CASE - where four applications were made during the course of the trial to discharge jury - where application to discharge made after one complainant referred during cross-examination to a separate charge which had yet to be tried - where application to discharge made after another complainant became argumentative and suggested the appellant may have given the complainant money because he felt bad for hurting the complainant - where application to discharge made after one of the complainants spoke of appellant and his actions in vulgar terms under cross-examination - where application to discharge made on grounds of prejudice from joinder of complainants, changes to particulars as to when offences occurred, failure of one complainant to come up to proof - where learned trial judge rejected all applications and gave directions related to these matters - whether the learned trial judge's directions were sufficient

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL COUNTS - where appellant made pre-trial application seeking separate trials for the set of sexual offence counts and for the set of drug offence counts - where application was unsuccessful - where appellant now argued that two separate trials should have been granted on the basis of the two main locations at which many of the offences were committed - whether a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted from the joint trial

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL…

Continue reading R v Ford

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ford [2006] QCA 142
Case
[2006] QCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ford, the appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and drug-related offences involving five teenage boys. The appellant appealed against his conviction on various grounds, including misdirection by the trial judge, the conduct of the trial, and the adequacy of legal representation. The court examined whether the absence of a Markuleski direction regarding the weight to be given to each complainant's evidence affected the safety and satisfaction of the conviction. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge's directions were sufficient in response to applications to discharge the jury and the fairness of the joint trial of multiple counts.

The court found that while the trial judge did not provide a Markuleski direction, the overall directions given were adequate for the jury to properly assess the evidence. The judge's refusal to discharge the jury, despite the applications made, was deemed reasonable as the directions provided were sufficient to mitigate any potential prejudice. The joint trial of the counts was also upheld, as there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice resulting from the trial's conduct. The court further determined that the appellant's trial counsel provided a competent defence, and there was no bias on the part of the trial judge. The appellant's complaints regarding his health, the conduct of the police, and the prosecution's witness list did not warrant a halt in the trial proceedings.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also denied. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's risk of reoffending and his lack of insight into his crimes. The decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's discretion in sentencing and the court's deference to that discretion, absent clear error or manifest injustice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.