R v Knight

Case [2012] QSC 397

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knight & ors [2012] QSC 397

PARTIES:

MARK DEMPSEY KNIGHT, WESLEY ROBERT WILLIAMS and WAYNE THOMAS ROBERTSON

(applicants)

v

THE QUEEN

(respondent)

FILE NO:

Indictment no 188 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

28 September and 19 November 2012

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – where applicants convicted of murder on retrial – where retrial removed to Brisbane due to publicity – where 19 days after verdict person believed to be a juror on the retrial stated to his barber that outcome of trial ‘wouldn’t make any difference as they were already serving life terms or long terms of imprisonment’ – where trial judge repeatedly instructed jury not to seek or consider information other than the evidence – where previous convictions of applicants widely broadcast after sentence on retrial – whether any grounds to suspect that juror may have been guilty of bias, fraud or an offence – whether investigation of any suspected bias, fraud or offence should be authorised

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), ss 68, 69A, 70(7)

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44, cited
Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477, cited
Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29, distinguished
R v Cant [2002] NTCCA 8, distinguished
R v Ferguson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 227, distinguished
R v Folbigg [2007] NSWCCA 371, distinguished
R v Gallagher (1987) 29 A Crim R 33, cited
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, considered
R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406, distinguished
R v Knight (No 1) [2009] QSC 448, related
R v Knight (No 2) [2009] QSC 449, related
R v Knight (No 3) [2009] QSC 450, related
R v Lacey; ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2009] QCA 274, cited
R v Long; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 77, distinguished
R v Minarowska and Koziol (1995) 83 A Crim R 78, cited
R v Mirza [2004] 2 WLR 201, cited
R v Munday (1984) 14 A Crim R 456, cited
R v Pan [2001] 2 SCR 344, cited
R v Patel [2012] QSC, unreported, 27 November 2012, considered
R v Rinaldi and Kessy (1993) 30 NSWLR 605, cited
R v Skafand Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 37, distinguished
R v Thompson [2011] 2 All ER 83, cited
R v Vaitos (1981) 4 A Crim R 238, cited
Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281, cited
Vaise v Deloval (1785) TR 11; 99 ER 944, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis SC with D R Lynch for the applicants

D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicants

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. On 2 April 2012 at the end of a trial…

Continue reading R v Knight

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Knight & ors [2012] QSC 397
Case
[2012] QSC 397
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Knight and another, were convicted of murder on retrial and subsequently appealed to the court. The retrial was removed to Brisbane due to extensive publicity surrounding the case. Nineteen days after the verdict, a person believed to be a juror made comments to his barber suggesting that the outcome of the trial would not make any difference as the applicants were already serving life terms or long terms of imprisonment. The trial judge had repeatedly instructed the jury not to seek or consider information other than the evidence presented. After the sentence on retrial, the previous convictions of the applicants were widely broadcast. The court was required to determine whether there were any grounds to suspect that the juror might have been guilty of bias, fraud, or an offence. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether an investigation into any suspected bias, fraud, or offence should be authorised.

The court considered the comments made by the alleged juror and the broadcast of the applicants' previous convictions. It found that there were no grounds to suspect that the juror was guilty of bias, fraud, or an offence. The comments made by the alleged juror did not indicate any improper influence or prejudice, and the broadcast of the previous convictions did not suggest any undue influence on the juror. The court concluded that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient to prevent any potential bias or prejudice. As a result, the court dismissed the application and found no grounds for an investigation into any suspected bias, fraud, or offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.