R v Jackson and Le Gros - [1994] QCA 46

THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 046

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 330 of 1993
C.A. No. 331 of 1993

Brisbane

Before

Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. White J.

[R. v. Jackson & Le Gros]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N

MARK GERARD JACKSON and PETER CECIL LE GROS
(Appellants)
Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. White J.

Judgment delivered 21/03/94

Reasons for judgment by the Court

APPEALS ALLOWED. VERDICTS OF GUILTY AND CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE.
NEW TRIAL ORDERED OF THOSE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT. ORDER IN

RESPECT OF EXHIBITS MJS1 AND MJS2 AS SPECIFIED IN THE

ACCOMPANYING REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

CATCHWORDSCRIMINAL LAW - JURIES - Miscarriage of justice - Communications between bailiff and foreman after jury retired - Bailiff gave advice on sentencing process - Whether communications unauthorised - Effect of s.621 Criminal Code (Qld) and s.31 Oaths Act 1867 - Interpretation of proviso to s.621 Criminal Code - Effect of general law relating to juries under s.46 Jury Act 1929 - Whether proviso to s.668E(1) Criminal Code should be invoked.

Counsel:S.E. Herbert Q.C., with him S. Zillaman for the

appellant

R.A. Mulholland Q.C., with him J.D. Callanan, for the respondent
Solicitors:Carew & Co. and Millican & Assoc. for the appellant
The Special Prosecutor for the respondent

Hearing Date: 9 February 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered the Twenty-First day of March 1994

The two appellants, together with another police officer who was later acquitted, were brought to trial in the District Court at Brisbane on an indictment containing a total of 18 counts charging official corruption. After a trial lasting some six months the jury returned verdicts of guilty on some of the counts against each of the appellants and acquitted them on others. These are appeals against those convictions.

The only matter argued by Mr Herbert Q.C. for the appellants was that a series of impermissible communications had passed between a court bailiff and the foreman of the jury after jurors had retired to consider their verdict. In response,

Mr Mulholland Q.C. for the Crown submitted that, even so, the communications could not have affected the verdicts, so that there had been no miscarriage of justice, and the appeals should therefore be dismissed under the proviso to s.668E(1) of the Criminal Code.

By the time the appeals were heard the communications made to the jury in this case had already been the subject of extensive investigation elsewhere. In the process a considerable amount of information has been accumulated about what had happened before the verdicts were returned. Fortunately, counsel before us were, for the purposes of the appeal, able to agree on a statement of facts representing the "minimum content" of that evidence, thus avoiding the need for the Court to find facts in detail. What follows is based on that agreed statement.

The jury at the trial retired to consider their verdicts on Wednesday 28 October 1992. On the evening of the second or third day of their deliberations the bailiff…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jackson and Le Gros and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1994] QCA 46
Decision Date: 21/03/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Mark Gerard Jackson and Peter Cecil Le Gros, were convicted in the District Court of official corruption charges, but appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the appeal was whether the appellants' convictions should be set aside due to impermissible communications between a court bailiff and the jury foreman after the jury had retired to consider their verdicts. The appellants argued that the bailiff had given advice on the sentencing process to the jury foreman, which was unauthorized and potentially prejudicial. The Crown contended that even if the communications occurred, they did not affect the verdicts and thus should not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal considered the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, which includes ensuring that juries reach their verdicts based solely on the evidence presented at trial. The Court noted that the bailiff's communications with the jury foreman, including advice on the sentencing process, were unauthorized and had the potential to influence the jury's verdicts. Such communications are strictly prohibited to prevent any external influences from affecting the jury's decision-making process. The Court concluded that the unauthorized communications raised a reasonable suspicion about the fairness of the trial and, therefore, the convictions could not stand. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the verdicts of guilty, and ordered a new trial for the affected counts.

The Court of Appeal further ordered that certain documents, MJS1 and MJS2, be replaced with redacted versions, and the originals be sealed. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining the impartiality and independence of the jury system in criminal trials.

Orders