SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Gibb [2018] QCA 120
PARTIES:
R
v
GIBB, Margo Jane
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 276 of 2016
DC No 513 of 2016DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 8 September 2016 (Kent QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
12 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 February 2018
JUDGES:
Holmes CJ and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:
1. The appeal against conviction on count 1 is allowed.
2. The verdict on count 1 is set aside and a verdict of guilty of burglary while armed and in company is substituted.
3. The appellant is sentenced to four years imprisonment on count 1. It is declared that she has already served 829 days of that sentence in pre-sentence custody and the parole eligibility date is fixed at 7 March 2018.
4. The appeal against conviction on count 2 is dismissed.
5. Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on count 2 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary by breaking while armed and in company and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence – where the appellant appeals against her conviction on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable – where the appellant contends that the complainant’s evidence should not have been accepted and that there were conflicts in and between the evidence of other witnesses – where the appellant has not pointed to anything which would make the complainant’s evidence impossible of belief – where there were rational explanations for conflicts in the evidence and they did not concern critical aspects of the Crown case – whether the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt – whether the verdict was unreasonable
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary by breaking while armed and in company and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence – where the appellant contended that there had been a miscarriage of justice because she was unrepresented at trial – where the trial judge had given leave to the appellant’s representatives to withdraw due to a breakdown in their relationship with their client – where the trial judge refused an application for an adjournment – whether that refusal resulted in an unfair trial – whether there was a miscarriage of justice requiring quashing of the conviction
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary by breaking while armed and in company and one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence – where the appellant contended that there had been a miscarriage of justice because the trial judge did…
Continue reading R v Gibb
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Gibb [2018] QCA 120
- Case
- [2018] QCA 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, and whether the verdict was unreasonable. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the refusal of an adjournment, the conduct of the trial judge, the revocation of bail, the admission of evidence, and the directions given to the jury. Finally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court found that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, and the verdict was not unreasonable. The court found that the refusal of an adjournment, the conduct of the trial judge, the revocation of bail, the admission of evidence, and the directions given to the jury did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. However, the court did find that the appellant should have been convicted of burglary while armed and in company, rather than burglary by breaking while armed and in company.
Accordingly, the appeal against conviction on count 1 was allowed, and the verdict was set aside and a verdict of guilty of burglary while armed and in company was substituted. The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment on count 1, with credit for 829 days of pre-sentence custody and a parole eligibility date of 7 March 2018. The appeal against conviction on count 2 was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on count 2 was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal against conviction on count 1 is allowed.
2. The verdict on count 1 is set aside and a verdict of guilty of burglary while armed and in company is substituted.
3. The appellant is sentenced to four years imprisonment on count 1. It is declared that she has already served 829 days of that sentence in pre-sentence custody and the parole eligibility date is fixed at 7 March 2018.
4. The appeal against conviction on count 2 is dismissed.
5. Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on count 2 is refused.
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.