R v Lowrie & Ross - [2000] QCA 405

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405

PARTIES: R
v
LOWRIE, Kerry Catherine
(appellant)
ROSS, Kerri-Leah Michelle
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 95 of 2000
CA No 92 of 2000
SC No 115 of 1997

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 3 October 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 11 September 2000

JUDGE:
McPherson and Thomas JJA, Muir J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: Appeals against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS - whether jury sufficiently instructed on the particular acts of the appellant said to support conviction pursuant to s7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – where Crown unable to specify the particular acts of the two appellants said to constitute liability pursuant to s7

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE – ACCOMPLICES – GENERALLY - whether error in failing to direct jury to exercise caution in using evidence of co-accused

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IMPEACHMENT OF CREDIT AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AS TO CREDIT – EVIDENCE IN CONTRADICTION – whether trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence disproving co-accused’s denial of having asked for indemnity when giving a statement to police – whether evidence fell within bias exception to the finality rule – whether error in refusing to allow cross-examination by reference to sealed s13A material of witness who had denied having acted as a police informant – evidence offending finality rule and/or hearsay rule

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(c)

Lowrie & Ross (1999) 106 A Crim R 565, referred to

R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000, cited

Jeffrey CA 154 of 1997, 19 December 1997, referred to

Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, referred to
Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531, referred to

Longman v The Queen (1988) 168 CLR 79, cited

R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered

Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1, cited

R v Yousry (1914) 11 Cr App R 13, cited

D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171, cited

Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 308, cited

COUNSEL: A J Rafter for the appellant Lowrie
P Callaghan for the appellant Ross
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Lowrie
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Ross
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the…

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 Lowrie & Ross

Details

AGLC: R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405
Case: [2000] QCA 405
Decision Date: 3 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lowrie & Ross, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for various criminal offences. The dispute reached the court where the appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds. The central issues in the appeal pertained to the admissibility of evidence, the jury's instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the guilt of the appellants.

The court examined whether the jury had been properly instructed regarding the specific acts of the appellants that were alleged to constitute the criminal offences. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury to exercise caution when using the evidence of co-accused. The appellants argued that the trial judge should have warned the jury about the potential unreliability of accomplice evidence. The court also reviewed whether there was an error in the trial judge's refusal to admit evidence that would have disproven a co-accused's denial of requesting indemnity when making a statement to the police. Furthermore, the appellants contended that the trial judge should have allowed cross-examination of a witness using sealed material under section 13A of a relevant Act.

The court found that there were no grounds to overturn the convictions. The jury had been adequately instructed, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions. The court held that the trial judge did not err in the manner in which evidence was admitted or in the instructions given to the jury. Consequently, the appeals against the convictions were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals against conviction 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 Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405
PARTIES:	R v LOWRIE, Kerry Catherine (appellant) ROSS, Kerri-Leah Michelle (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2000 CA No 92 of 2000 SC No 115 of 1997
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	3 October 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 September 2000
JUDGE:	McPherson and Thomas JJA, Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeals against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS - whether jury sufficiently instructed on the particular acts of the appellant said to support conviction pursuant to s7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – where Crown unable to specify the particular acts of the two appellants said to constitute liability pursuant to s7 CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE – ACCOMPLICES – GENERALLY - whether error in failing to direct jury to exercise caution in using evidence of co-accused CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IMPEACHMENT OF CREDIT AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AS TO CREDIT – EVIDENCE IN CONTRADICTION – whether trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence disproving co-accused’s denial of having asked for indemnity when giving a statement to police – whether evidence fell within bias exception to the finality rule – whether error in refusing to allow cross-examination by reference to sealed s13A material of witness who had denied having acted as a police informant – evidence offending finality rule and/or hearsay rule Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(c) Lowrie & Ross (1999) 106 A Crim R 565, referred to R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000, cited Jeffrey CA 154 of 1997, 19 December 1997, referred to Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, referred to Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531, referred to Longman v The Queen (1988) 168 CLR 79, cited R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1, cited R v Yousry (1914) 11 Cr App R 13, cited D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171, cited Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 308, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellant Lowrie P Callaghan for the appellant Ross L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Lowrie Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Ross Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the…