R v Martindale - [2009] QCA 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24

PARTIES:

R
v
MARTINDALE, Raymond Warren
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 93 of 2008
DC No 3005 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE — APPEAL DISMISSED — where appellant alleged that different jury verdicts on different counts of the same offence were inconsistent — whether the allegedly inconsistent verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE — PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE — GENERALLY — where appellant alleged that trial judge erred in admitting evidence that appellant attempted to create false alibi — where appellant alleged that prejudicial effect outweighed probative value and evidence should therefore be excluded — whether discretion to exclude evidence properly exercised

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 93B

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565; [1981] HCA 63, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
R v Garwood [2001] QCA 148, cited
R v J (No 2) [1998] 3 VR 602, cited
R v Juric (2002) 4 VR 411; [2002] VSCA 77, cited
R v Mitchell (2007) A Crim R 52; [2007] QCA 267, cited
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: On 26 March 2008 the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of rape, three counts of attempted rape, and four counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 16 years who was in his care. There were 10 counts on the indictment on which the appellant was tried. The jury delivered differing verdicts on each of these counts as follows:

Count 1       Indecent Treatment of a Child under 16, under care:        Guilty
Count 2       Rape:  Guilty
Count 3       Indecent Treatment of a Child under 16, under care:        Guilty
Count 4       Rape:   Not Guilty
Alternative Indecent Treatment of a Child
                   under 16, under care:  Guilty

Count 5       Attempted Rape:  Guilty
Count 6       Rape:  Not Guilty
Alternative Indecent Treatment of a Child
                   under 16, under care:  Guilty

Count 7 Attempted Rape: Guilty
Count 8…

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 Martindale

Details

AGLC: R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24
Case: [2009] QCA 24
Decision Date: 20 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Martindale, the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of intentionally destroying property, contrary to section 196(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The appellant sought to appeal the conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and therefore unreasonable and insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant also contested the trial judge's decision to admit evidence of an alleged attempt to create a false alibi, claiming that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdicts on different counts of the same offence were inconsistent and unreasonable, and whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to admit evidence of an alleged attempt to create a false alibi. The court considered whether the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty of the offences, and whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that was more prejudicial than probative.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of the alleged attempt to create a false alibi, as the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable, and that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Martindale [2009] QCA 24
PARTIES:	R v MARTINDALE, Raymond Warren (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 93 of 2008 DC No 3005 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 February 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE — APPEAL DISMISSED — where appellant alleged that different jury verdicts on different counts of the same offence were inconsistent — whether the allegedly inconsistent verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE — PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE — GENERALLY — where appellant alleged that trial judge erred in admitting evidence that appellant attempted to create false alibi — where appellant alleged that prejudicial effect outweighed probative value and evidence should therefore be excluded — whether discretion to exclude evidence properly exercised Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 93B Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565; [1981] HCA 63, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited R v Garwood [2001] QCA 148, cited R v J (No 2) [1998] 3 VR 602, cited R v Juric (2002) 4 VR 411; [2002] VSCA 77, cited R v Mitchell (2007) A Crim R 52; [2007] QCA 267, cited R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf P F Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent