R v Martin - [2006] VSCA 299

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 123 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
DAMIEN ROBERT MARTIN

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT and NEAVE JJA and KING AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 October 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 299

---

Criminal Law – Conviction – Murder – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Directions in respect of lies – Consciousness of guilt – Whether trial judge erred in failing to extend the Edwards direction to the alternative verdict of assisting an offender – Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C M Quin	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr S A Shirrefs, SC with Mr M W S Duckett	Victoria Legal Aid

VINCENT JA:

The applicant, who now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction,[1] was found guilty by the jury empanelled on his trial[2] of the murder, at Shepparton on 24 October 2003, of a 19 year old man, Adrian Joseph Power.[3] His alleged co-offender, Sean Petot, pleaded guilty prior to the trial.
[1]The determination of this matter has been delayed, awaiting the judgment of the Court of five members in R v Ciantar [2006] VSCA 263 which considered the earlier decision in R v Heyes (2006) 12 VR 401 and which it was thought may have affected the position. Counsel were given the opportunity to present further submissions when the judgments in Ciantar were handed down if it was considered necessary. Neither has done so.
[2]The trial was conducted in the Supreme Court sitting at Shepparton and the verdict returned on 21 March 2005.
[3]After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the learned sentencing judge, on 22 April 2005, imposed a term of imprisonment of 18 years, in respect of which a non-parole period of 13 years was fixed.

The Background

Petot and the victim were close friends for more than three years, having initially met while they were living in Eaglehawk in Victoria. A few days before the death of the deceased, the two young men encountered and befriended the applicant with whom they then travelled to Shepparton with the intention of seeking work as fruit pickers. They booked into the Midpark Caravan Park at Mooroopna and resided there until the day on which Adrian Power was killed.

On 24 October 2003, the group went shopping at the Safeway store in Shepparton and, shortly before 7.00 p.m., were returning on foot along a causeway, linking Shepparton and Mooroopna, with a shopping trolley containing their purchases when police members spoke to them.[4] They noted that Petot appeared to be significantly affected by alcohol, whilst the applicant appeared to be quiet and did not display any signs of intoxication. The victim was walking ahead and appeared to be in a “huff”. The young men were directed to a bicycle track adjacent to the highway at the side of which they were walking, as it…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2006] VSCA 299
Case: [2006] VSCA 299
Decision Date: 20 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Martin, the appellant was convicted of murder, with a direction regarding lies and consciousness of guilt considered during the trial. The appellant sought to appeal the decision on the grounds that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the trial judge erred by not extending the Edwards direction to the alternative verdict of assisting an offender. The matter was brought before the court for determination.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if the trial judge had indeed erred by not extending the Edwards direction to the alternative verdict. The court needed to determine if the appellant's conviction was based on reliable evidence and if the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in providing directions to the jury.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the trial judge had not erred in their direction to the jury. The court held that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and that there was no basis for the appellant's contention that the trial judge failed to extend the Edwards direction to the alternative verdict of assisting an offender. The court found that the judge's directions were appropriate and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the appellant's conviction for murder was upheld, and no further appeal lies against the conviction. The court's determination affirmed the correctness of the trial judge's directions and the reliability of the evidence presented during the trial.

Orders