R v GAM - [2011] QCA 288

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GAM [2011] QCA 288

PARTIES:

R
v
GAM
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 31 of 2011
DC No 54 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore 12 July 2011
Reasons delivered 18 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 July 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 12 July 2011:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The convictions of guilty are set aside.

3. A new trial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FURTHER EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of offences including burglary by breaking in the night with violence, while armed and in company, stealing, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and doing grievous bodily harm – where the only evidence against the appellant was his admissions to the police – where the appellant and respondent adduced further evidence on appeal – whether that evidence, if received, when combined with the evidence at trial requires the convictions to be set aside and a new trial ordered

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 36
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 421
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), sch 4

Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26, cited
Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659; [1979] HCA 49, cited
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; [1989] HCA 35, cited
R v Condren; ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 574, cited
R v Daley; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 162, cited
R v Freer & Weekes[2004] QCA 97, cited
R v Katsidis; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 229, cited
R v Main; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1999) 105 A Crim R 412; [1999] QCA 148, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v Young (No 2) [1969] Qd R 566, cited
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

MacDonald Law for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: On 12 July 2011, this Court made the following orders:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The convictions of guilty are set aside.

3. A new trial is ordered.

4. The Court will reserve its reasons for these orders.

What follows are my reasons for joining in those orders.

The appellant was convicted in the Toowoomba District Court on 28 February 2011 after a six day trial of…

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 GAM

Details

AGLC: R v GAM [2011] QCA 288
Case: [2011] QCA 288
Decision Date: 12 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v GAM, the appellant was convicted by the trial court of various serious offences, including burglary, theft, and assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the trial court should have ordered a new trial based on new evidence presented. The appeal was heard by the court which needed to determine whether the new evidence, if received, when combined with the evidence at trial, required the convictions to be set aside and a new trial to be ordered.

The central legal issue was whether the new evidence presented by both the appellant and the respondent was sufficient to warrant a new trial. The court considered the general principles surrounding the grant or refusal of a new trial, focusing on the nature and weight of the new evidence and whether it could reasonably have affected the outcome of the trial. The court examined whether the new evidence undermined the reliability of the original evidence, and if so, whether this was sufficient to warrant a new trial.

After reviewing the new evidence, the court concluded that it had the potential to significantly impact the outcome of the trial. The court found that the new evidence, if believed, could reasonably lead to a different verdict and therefore warranted the setting aside of the original convictions. The court ordered a new trial to allow for the proper consideration of the new evidence. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The final orders of the court were delivered ex tempore on 12 July 2011. The appeal was allowed, the convictions of guilty were set aside, and a new trial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial with all relevant evidence considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 12 July 2011:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The convictions of guilty are set aside.

3. A new trial is ordered.

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.

CITATION:	R v GAM [2011] QCA 288
PARTIES:	R v GAM (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 31 of 2011 DC No 54 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore 12 July 2011 Reasons delivered 18 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 July 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore on 12 July 2011: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The convictions of guilty are set aside. 3. A new trial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FURTHER EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of offences including burglary by breaking in the night with violence, while armed and in company, stealing, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and doing grievous bodily harm – where the only evidence against the appellant was his admissions to the police – where the appellant and respondent adduced further evidence on appeal – whether that evidence, if received, when combined with the evidence at trial requires the convictions to be set aside and a new trial ordered Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 36 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 421 Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), sch 4 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26, cited Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659; [1979] HCA 49, cited Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; [1989] HCA 35, cited R v Condren; ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 574, cited R v Daley; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 162, cited R v Freer & Weekes[2004] QCA 97, cited R v Katsidis; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 229, cited R v Main; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1999) 105 A Crim R 412; [1999] QCA 148, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited R v Young (No 2) [1969] Qd R 566, cited Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	MacDonald Law for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent