R v Martin

Case [2011] QCA 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Martin [2011] QCA 342

PARTIES:

R
v
MARTIN, Kenneth Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 197 of 2010
SC No 28 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser JA and North J concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting in part

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner – where the appellant argued the jury verdict was unreasonable as, in light of the evidence of his intoxication, the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he formed the necessary intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to lead evidence of statements made by the appellant when first questioned by police in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the conversation between the appellant and police officers was highly relevant to the issues in dispute at trial – whether the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion to admit the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the trial judge found that provocation was not raised on the evidence and should not be left to the jury – where the appellant argued there was evidence raising provocation including the number of stabbing injuries to the deceased indicating a loss of self control, the evidence of the acrimonious relationship between the appellant and the deceased, and evidence that the deceased told the appellant she was leaving him and taking their child – whether the evidence was reasonably capable of raising provocation – whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on provocation as a partial defence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (Reprint 7), s 304, s 668E(1A)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 7,
s 8, s 9, s 10, s 420, s 423

Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen [1963] AC 220, cited
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, cited
Pollock v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233; [2010] HCA 35, considered
R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246, cited
R v Buttigieg (1993) 69 A Crim R 21; [1993] QCA 214, cited
R v…

Continue reading R v Martin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Martin [2011] QCA 342
Case
[2011] QCA 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Martin, appealed his conviction for the murder of his de facto partner. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence, whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in admitting certain evidence, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the partial defence of provocation. The court was asked to determine if the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Martin formed the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, considering his level of intoxication. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge should have excluded statements made by Martin to police, which were obtained in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Finally, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to raise the partial defence of provocation, and if the trial judge should have directed the jury on this issue.

The court found that the evidence, including the number of stabbing injuries to the deceased, the acrimonious relationship between the parties, and the deceased's statement about leaving Martin, was not reasonably capable of raising the partial defence of provocation. Consequently, the trial judge did not err in finding that provocation was not raised on the evidence and should not be left to the jury. Regarding the admissibility of the police statements, the court held that the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion to admit the evidence as it was highly relevant to the issues in dispute. Finally, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, given the evidence presented at trial.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court did not find merit in the appellant's arguments that the verdict was unreasonable, that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence, or that the trial judge should have directed the jury on provocation. The evidence supported the jury's finding that Martin was guilty of murder, and the trial process was conducted fairly and correctly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.