R v Martin and King - [1999] QCA 366

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 366
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 165 of 1998 CA No 186 of 1998

Brisbane
[R v Martin & King]
T H E Q U E E N
v
PETER GEORGE MARTIN and

ADAM GRAHAM KING Appellants
McPherson JA
Moynihan J
Atkinson J

Judgment delivered 10 September 1999
Judgment of the Court
APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Matters relating to proof.
JURY - The jury in criminal proceedings - Whether verdict
should be set aside for bias on the part of a juror.
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592.
R v Stuart & Finch [1974] Qd R 297.
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41.
Criminal Code s7.
Jury Act (Qld) 1995 s70.

Counsel:

Mr P M Darveniza for the appellant King Mr B Devereaux for the appellant Martin Mr D Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors: Adamsons for the appellant King
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Martin
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 30 April 1999

THE COURT: At about 10 am on Tuesday 2 September 1997, a middle aged man entered the post office at Tugun. He was wearing blue overalls and a beanie pulled well down over his head, and was carrying a bag and a sawn-off shotgun. He demanded and was given money, after which he escaped from the post office. He was seen being driven off in a red Ford vehicle, which after travelling down a one-way street in the wrong direction, went through a drive-in bottle shop on Gold Four Drive, and drove along Tooloona Street towards Coolangatta. A nearby shopkeeper, who saw the man arrive and sit in the front passenger seat of the car before it was driven away, noticed the make of the car and recorded the registration number, which was 261-AMF.
At Tugun, Golden Four Drive runs parallel to the beach and to the Gold Coast Highway (ex 10). A series of short streets run off it towards the beach. One of them is Shell Street, which is about 500 or 600m south of the Tugun Post Office. At about 10.10 am on 2 September 1997 a resident of a house in Shell Street looked out of his window and saw the red Ford vehicle pull up in the street outside. When he looked again, he saw two men standing and talking together beside the driver's side of the car. One was carrying a bag. After conversing briefly they parted, with one of them going towards the Highway heading south, while the other with the bag walked off in the direction of the beach.
Half an hour or so later, police driving north on Gold Four Drive noticed a purple Ford Falcon parked facing east in Surf Street, which is another street running off the Drive in the direction of the beach (ex 10). Surf Street is about a kilometre south of Shell Street and therefore further away from…

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 and King

Details

AGLC: R v Martin and King [1999] QCA 366
Case: [1999] QCA 366
Decision Date: 10/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin and King involved two defendants, Martin and King, who were charged with criminal offences. The nature of the dispute centred around matters of evidence and the fairness of the trial process. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the country. The defendants sought to challenge the validity of their convictions on several grounds, including the alleged bias of a juror and the admissibility of certain evidence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the verdict should be set aside due to bias on the part of a juror and whether certain evidence was admissible in the trial. The defendants argued that a juror had shown bias, which undermined the fairness of the trial and necessitated a new trial. Additionally, they contended that certain evidence should not have been admitted, as it was obtained in an unlawful manner and prejudiced the defendants.

The court considered the arguments presented and examined the evidence and conduct of the trial. In relation to the alleged bias of the juror, the court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the juror was biased. The court emphasised that jurors are expected to approach their duties with an open mind and that minor lapses in conduct do not necessarily equate to bias. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence in question was properly admitted as it was obtained lawfully and was relevant to the case. The court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and that the convictions should stand.

The High Court upheld the convictions of both Martin and King. The court found no merit in the defendants' claims regarding juror bias and the admissibility of evidence. The court's decision reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and ensuring that convictions are based on fair and lawful evidence.

Orders