R v Griffith - [2004] QCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffith [2004] QCA 110

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIFFITH, Brett Randall
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 422 of 2002
SC No 114 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies, McPherson and Williams JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where appellant was one of three people to rob a jewellery store - where appellant was convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery with circumstances of aggravation and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation - where appellant had an extensive previous criminal history - where appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment - whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PARTICULAR CASES - where the evidence showed certain police procedures in dealing with exhibits were not followed - where it was submitted that the learned trial judge failed to give adequate directions to the jury regarding what should be considered in determining whether they should rely on the testimony of police, because of the opportunity the police had to fabricate evidence against the appellant - whether the failure to give an adequate direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 632(2) s 632(3)

R v Macaulay [1995] QCA 137; CA No 540 of 1994, 11 April 1995, distinguished

R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA No 21 of 2002, CA No 122 of 2002, CA No 26 of 2002 and CA No 115 of 2002, 6 September 2002, cited

R v Pittas CA No 29 of 1989, 2 May 1989, distinguished

R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178; CA No 99 of 1997, 4 June 1997, distinguished

R v Sultana (1992) 74 A Crim R 27, not followed

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for appellant/applicant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale & Son for appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: After a trial by jury the appellant was convicted on 27 November 2002 of attempted murder, armed robbery with circumstances of aggravation and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the first two of those counts and to 10 years imprisonment on the third. A declaration was made with respect to pre-sentence custody of 41 days. He appeals against his convictions and seeks…

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 Griffith

Details

AGLC: R v Griffith [2004] QCA 110
Case: [2004] QCA 110
Decision Date: 16 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, one of three individuals involved in the armed robbery of a jewellery store, was convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery with aggravating circumstances, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with an aggravating circumstance. The appellant had a lengthy criminal history, and as a result, was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and his sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on certain aspects of the evidence. The appeal against the conviction centred on the trial judge's handling of evidence regarding police procedures, while the appeal against the sentence focused on the severity of the life sentence.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and other relevant factors. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge's failure to provide adequate directions to the jury about the reliability of police evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court reviewed relevant case law and considered the principles set out in previous decisions, including R v Macaulay, R v Palmer & Hite, R v Pittas, and R v Streeton.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the seriousness of the crimes committed, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The court also concluded that the trial judge's failure to provide adequate directions to the jury about the reliability of police evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the jury was still able to properly consider the evidence before them. The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld, and no further appeal against the sentence would be allowed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Griffith [2004] QCA 110
PARTIES:	R v GRIFFITH, Brett Randall (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 422 of 2002 SC No 114 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 March 2004
JUDGES:	Davies, McPherson and Williams JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where appellant was one of three people to rob a jewellery store - where appellant was convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery with circumstances of aggravation and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation - where appellant had an extensive previous criminal history - where appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment - whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PARTICULAR CASES - where the evidence showed certain police procedures in dealing with exhibits were not followed - where it was submitted that the learned trial judge failed to give adequate directions to the jury regarding what should be considered in determining whether they should rely on the testimony of police, because of the opportunity the police had to fabricate evidence against the appellant - whether the failure to give an adequate direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 632(2) s 632(3) R v Macaulay [1995] QCA 137; CA No 540 of 1994, 11 April 1995, distinguished R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA No 21 of 2002, CA No 122 of 2002, CA No 26 of 2002 and CA No 115 of 2002, 6 September 2002, cited R v Pittas CA No 29 of 1989, 2 May 1989, distinguished R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178; CA No 99 of 1997, 4 June 1997, distinguished R v Sultana (1992) 74 A Crim R 27, not followed
COUNSEL:	P E Smith for appellant/applicant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	A W Bale & Son for appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent