R v Garrett

Case [2009] QCA 300

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Garrett [2009] QCA 300
PARTIES: R
v
GARRETT, Bradley
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 182 of 2007
DC No 459 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2009

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where appellant convicted of one count of deprivation of liberty and one count of burglary – where conviction based on DNA evidence – where appellant alleged that there had been various inadequacies in the investigation including loss of evidence and failure to analyse evidence – where appellant also alleged defects in the trial including, inter alia, the failure of his legal counsel to adduce certain evidence, the prosecution asking leading questions, and the trial judge questioning witnesses – whether the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice – whether the jury verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where appellant argued that the jury should have been discharged due to the actions and behaviour of a particular juror – where appellant alleged that the juror had sent a text message to a prosecution assistant and had told other jurors he had previously seen the appellant ‘shackled’ on a plane – whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury without the jury delivering verdicts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was also charged with one count of rape – where the jury failed to reach a verdict on this count – whether the failure to reach a verdict on the rape count casts doubt on the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts on the counts of deprivation of liberty and burglary

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75, cited
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited
R v DAL[2005] QCA 281, cited
R v Kahu [2006] QCA 33, cited
R v Katsidis; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 229, cited
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, cited
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on…

Continue reading R v Garrett

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Garrett [2009] QCA 300
Case
[2009] QCA 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Garrett involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction for one count of deprivation of liberty and one count of burglary. The conviction was based on DNA evidence. The appellant raised various grounds for an appeal, including claims of irregularities in the investigation and trial, and alleged that the jury should have been discharged due to the behaviour of a particular juror. The appellant also argued that the inconsistent verdicts on the charges, with the jury failing to reach a verdict on the rape charge, cast doubt on the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts on the other charges.

The central legal issues the court had to decide included whether the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice due to the alleged inadequacies in the investigation and trial, and whether the jury verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury due to the alleged misconduct of a juror, and whether the failure to reach a verdict on the rape charge undermined the reliability of the guilty verdicts on the other counts.

The court considered the appellant's arguments and examined the evidence and proceedings thoroughly. The court found that the particular circumstances and other alleged irregularities did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the DNA evidence was reliable and sufficient to support the convictions. The court also determined that the alleged misconduct of the juror did not warrant the discharge of the jury, and that the failure to reach a verdict on the rape charge did not cast doubt on the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts on the other charges. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and the convictions for deprivation of liberty and burglary were affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.