R v Martin

Case [2002] QCA 443

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Martin, Klinge & Sambo [2002] QCA 443

PARTIES:

R
v
MARTIN, Christopher Bradley
(appellant)
KLINGE, Darryl Allen
(appellant)
SAMBO, Phillip Peter Lawrence
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 79 of 2002
CA No 93 of 2002
CA No 114 of 2002
SC No 399 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Helman and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeals allowed.

2. Verdicts and convictions against each of the appellants set aside.

3.  Appellants Martin and Sambo be retried on charges of murder and appellant Klinge be retried on charge of manslaughter.

4. Each appellant to be remanded in custody until retrial, but without prejudice to any application that may be made to the Supreme Court for bail pending retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL - NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS -MISDIRECTION - JUDGE’S SUMMING UP - multiple accused - criminal responsibility based on ss 7 and 8 Criminal Code (Qld) - variously - whether reference to s 8 prejudices one accused

APPEAL - NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS -  accused told multiple lies - whether failure to identify those relied upon to show consciousness of guilt made verdict unsafe - whether lies are equivalent to admissions

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - JOINT TRIAL - admission by one accused out of court - whether admissible in favour of one accused and against maker of statement

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURES - WITNESSES - MATTERS - crown witness not asked to confirm statement of other witness - whether judge required to make direction that accused not required to raise issues that may hurt his defence

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(c), s 8, s 302(1)(a)

Bannon v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 1, discussed
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, discussed
The Queen v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1, applied
R v Brennan [1999] 2 Qd R 529, mentioned
R v GEC [2001] 3 VR 334, discussed
R v Jeffrey (1997) CA No 154 1997; 19 Dec 1997, referred to
R v K [2001] QCA 551; 23 Nov 2001, applied
R v K, ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 260; 30 Jul 2002, applied
R v Sherrington & Kuchler [2001] QCA 105; 6 Apr 2001, referred to
R v Solomon [1980] NSWLR 321, referred to
R v Zullo [1993] 2 Qd R 572, referred to
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, discussed

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant, Martin
P J Davis for the appellant, Klinge
P J Callaghan for the appellant, Sambo
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McPHERSON JA: Michael Needham was…

Continue reading R v Martin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Martin [2002] QCA 443
Case
[2002] QCA 443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the convictions of Martin, Sambo, and Klinge, following a trial where they were found guilty of various criminal charges, including murder and manslaughter. The appellants challenged the verdicts on several grounds, including misdirection by the trial judge in summing up, the admissibility of statements made by one accused out of court, and the failure to identify specific lies relied upon to show consciousness of guilt. The Queensland Court of Appeal reviewed the case to determine whether the trial errors were substantial enough to warrant a new trial.

The court had to address whether the trial judge misdirected himself in his summing up, particularly in relation to sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The appellants argued that the judge's reference to section 8 might have prejudiced one of the accused. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to identify specific lies relied upon by the prosecution to show consciousness of guilt rendered the verdicts unsafe. The admissibility of an out-of-court statement made by one accused was also scrutinized, along with whether the judge should have directed that the accused was not required to raise issues that might hurt his defence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did indeed misdirect himself in his summing up, which was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the failure to identify the specific lies relied upon to demonstrate consciousness of guilt contributed to the unsafe nature of the verdicts. The court also concluded that the admission of the out-of-court statement was inappropriate, as it was prejudicial to one accused while being beneficial to another. These errors collectively rendered the verdicts unsafe and unreliable.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the verdicts and convictions set aside, and a retrial ordered for Martin, Sambo, and Klinge on their respective charges. The appellants were to be remanded in custody until retrial, with no prejudice to any future applications for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeals allowed.

2. Verdicts and convictions against each of the appellants set aside.

3. Appellants Martin and Sambo be retried on charges of murder and appellant Klinge be retried on charge of manslaughter.

4. Each appellant to be remanded in custody until retrial, but without prejudice to any application that may be made to the Supreme Court for bail pending retrial.

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.