R v Long

Case [2003] QCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Long; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 77

PARTIES:

R
v
LONG, Robert Paul
(appellant/respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 104 of 2002
CA No 81 of 2002
SC No 518 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 October 2002; 30 October 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. The appeal by Robert Paul Long against his convictions for murder and arson dismissed
2. The appeal by the Attorney General against the sentence imposed on Mr Long dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY – where publicity prejudicial to the appellant was published in the three days prior to the appellant being charged – where trial did not take place until 20 months after the last of the prejudicial publicity was published in the media – where much of this publicity was available on the internet after the charges were laid – where appellant submits that the jury would have been able to access the internet material – whether learned trial judge erred in refusing to grant a permanent stay of the indictment

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where appellant submits that there was a substantial risk that prejudicial pre-trial publicity precluded him from a fair trial – where learned trial judge gave firm directions to the jury at the commencement of the trial to ignore any related publicity and decide on the evidence alone – where directions repeated in summing up – where no complaint made of directions – whether pre-trial publicity resulted in a miscarriage of justice 

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – where trial was held in a large, ceremonial court instead of a regular criminal court – where appellant submits this led to a “show” trial and pressured the jury to deliver guilty verdicts – where appellant applied at pre-trial hearing for the use of a regular criminal court – where prosecution supported the application – where learned trial judge ascertained that the ceremonial court would function satisfactorily for the trial – whether use of the ceremonial court amounted to a miscarriage of justice when combined with the pre-trial publicity

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARINESS – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant confessed to police officers that he started the hostel fire – where appellant made this admission immediately after he had been shot…

Continue reading R v Long

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Long [2003] QCA 77
Case
[2003] QCA 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robert Paul Long, appealed against his convictions for murder and arson, as well as the sentence imposed upon him. The Attorney-General cross-appealed against the sentence, seeking an increase in the minimum term before parole consideration could be made. The legal issues in the case involved the impact of pre-trial publicity on the fairness of the trial, the voluntariness of the appellant's confession, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court found that the pre-trial publicity did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. The trial judge gave clear directions to the jury to disregard the publicity and base their decision solely on the evidence presented in court. The court also concluded that the use of a large, ceremonial court for the trial did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the judge had ensured that the court would function satisfactorily for the proceedings. The court further held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and properly admitted, as it passed the common law tests of voluntariness and reliability. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the confession was obtained in circumstances that were unacceptable according to prevailing community standards.

The court dismissed both the appellant's and the Attorney-General's appeals. The court found that the trial judge did not err in sentencing the appellant, as the sentence was based on the fact that the deaths were caused by the appellant's intentional arson, not on the number of fatalities. The court also found that the trial judge's sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal by Robert Paul Long against his convictions for murder and arson dismissed

2. The appeal by the Attorney General against the sentence imposed on Mr Long 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.