R v. Golledge - [2007] QCA 54

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Golledge [2007] QCA 54

PARTIES:

R
v
GOLLEDGE, Darren Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 262 of 2006
SC No 551 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of murder and a number of lesser offences - whether verdict was against the evidence or unreasonable - whether verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where identification evidence admitted without objection - where judge gave comprehensive warning - whether trial miscarried by reason of admission of identification evidence - whether jury should have been discharged

Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170, considered

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered

Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, considered

R v Currie, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, Qld, CA No 313 of 1990, 21 December 1990, considered

R v Morris; ex parte Attorney- General (Qld) [1996] 2 Qd R 68, considered

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid (Queensland) for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: Keane JA has set out the issues and the most pertinent facts so that my reasons for also refusing the appeal can be quite shortly stated.

In addition to the matters set out by Keane JA, I mention the following. Although it was not suggested by counsel that the shotgun could have been discharged into the deceased's head otherwise than deliberately by the killer, s 23(1)(a) Criminal Code was left for the jury's consideration. Mr Weir's shotgun, the weapon used to kill the deceased, was tested and found to be safe in all respects.

It was also examined for fingerprints. The only fingerprints found on it belonged to the deceased. The appellant's fingerprints were not located at the crime scene nor in Mr Weir's Rover car.

On 16 September 1997 the videotape of Mr Weir's forced confession to growing cannabis was located inside a video camera in the rear of the deceased's vehicle, which had been in the possession of the appellant. The deceased's fingerprint was located on the video camera.

Mr Weir gave evidence that his ordeal on 11 September 1997 at the hands of the deceased and "Fraser" took place over about…

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. Golledge

Details

AGLC: R v Golledge [2007] QCA 54
Case: [2007] QCA 54
Decision Date: 2 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v. Golledge, the appellant was convicted of murder and several lesser offences, leading to an appeal against the verdict. The court was required to determine whether the conviction was unreasonable or against the evidence, as well as whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal also raised questions about whether the trial was miscarried due to the improper admission of identification evidence, despite the judge providing a comprehensive warning.

The court examined the principles outlined in Davies and Cody v The King, Domican v The Queen, and Festa v The Queen, among others. The court considered the impact of the identification evidence and whether the warning given by the judge was sufficient to mitigate any prejudicial effect. The court also assessed whether the circumstances amounted to a miscarriage of justice or if the error was not substantial enough to warrant a new trial.

Ultimately, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable or against the evidence, and the jury's decision was safe and satisfactory. The court concluded that the admission of identification evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the judge's warning was adequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal, thereby affirming the appellant's convictions for murder and the lesser offences.

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.

CITATION:	R v Golledge [2007] QCA 54
PARTIES:	R v GOLLEDGE, Darren Michael (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 262 of 2006 SC No 551 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of murder and a number of lesser offences - whether verdict was against the evidence or unreasonable - whether verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where identification evidence admitted without objection - where judge gave comprehensive warning - whether trial miscarried by reason of admission of identification evidence - whether jury should have been discharged Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170, considered Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, considered R v Currie, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, Qld, CA No 313 of 1990, 21 December 1990, considered R v Morris; ex parte Attorney- General (Qld) [1996] 2 Qd R 68, considered
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid (Queensland) for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent