R v Hall

[2004] QCA 307

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
HOLMES J

CA No 181 of 2004
CA No 193 of 2004

THE QUEEN

SHANE MICHAEL HALL and
KARINA JUNE HALL a.k.a. KARINA JUNE JENSEN

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/08/2004

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The respondent concedes that the judicial directions to the jury as to the identification evidence in the case of Jensen were inadequate and that it is not an appropriate case in her appeal to exercise the proviso in
s 668E(1A) Criminal Code.

In those circumstances the Court orders in Jensen's appeal that the appeal be allowed and her convictions quashed.

The Court will reserve its decision as to whether a new trial should be ordered.

Jensen should be granted bail on the same terms as her earlier grant of bail.

The Court will deliver its reasons for these orders later.

The Court will reserve its decision in respect of Hall's appeal.

-----

The appeal before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved Shane Michael Hall and Karina June Hall, also known as Karina June Jensen. The dispute arose from their convictions and the subsequent appeal against those convictions. The court examined whether the judicial directions provided to the jury regarding the identification evidence in Jensen's case were adequate. The inadequacy of these directions was conceded by the respondent, leading to the appeal being allowed and Jensen's convictions being quashed. The court reserved its decision on whether a new trial should be ordered and directed that Jensen be granted bail on the same terms as her earlier bail. The court also reserved its decision concerning Hall's appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judicial directions provided to the jury regarding the identification evidence were sufficient. This was crucial in determining the validity of Jensen's conviction. Given that the inadequacy of these directions was conceded, the court needed to assess whether this was a case where the proviso in section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code should be exercised. The court also had to consider whether a new trial should be ordered and whether bail should be granted to Jensen.

The court found that the judicial directions to the jury were indeed inadequate. As the respondent conceded this point, the court allowed the appeal and quashed Jensen's convictions. The court decided to reserve its decision on ordering a new trial and directed that Jensen be granted bail on the same terms as her earlier grant. The court also reserved its decision regarding Hall's appeal. The court reasoned that the inadequacy of the directions was significant enough to warrant the quashing of Jensen's convictions, but it did not immediately decide on the necessity of a new trial or the terms of Hall's appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established