R v McGrane

Case [2002] QCA 173

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McGrane [2002] QCA 173

PARTIES:

R
v
McGRANE, Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 1 of 2002
SC No 619 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

The appeal should be dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – MENS REA - PROOF AND EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE  - where the character of the Crown case was circumstantial – where it was based on the contention that the appellant doctor killed the deceased, his patient,  by injecting her with a very large dose of morphine – where his motivation was to avoid her pursuing a complaint against him of professional misconduct - where appellant knew of complaints by the victim accusing him of professional misconduct 

CRIMINAL LAW  - PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where similar fact evidence of the appellant’s sexual abuse of patients was admitted into evidence at trial – where that evidence established propensity of the appellant to drug and sexually assault female patients – whether that evidence should have been admitted or whether it was left to the jury on too broad a basis

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY  - HEARSAY – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES - where unidentified Asian female telephoned to complain about being drugged by the appellant  - whether this evidence could be brought into evidence within the exceptions to the hearsay rule as involving a representation of the drugging of the victim by the appellant expressed by someone on behalf of the victim – whether representations include implied and inferred representations – whether it could be inferred that the deceased was present when the telephone call was made – where the admission of technically inadmissible evidence, not objected to for rational forensic reasons could result in the quashing of a conviction – where even if the evidence was considered inadmissible, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice such as to invalidate the conviction

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONCITION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TESTS – WHETHER JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED SAME VERDICT – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE

Criminal Code (Qld), s 592A, s 688E
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B, s 93C
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 65
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 65

Conway v R (2000) 172 ALR 185, referred…

Continue reading R v McGrane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McGrane [2002] QCA 173
Case
[2002] QCA 173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, a doctor, against his conviction for the murder of a patient. The case revolved around the contention that the appellant had administered a lethal dose of morphine to the deceased to prevent her from pursuing a complaint against him for professional misconduct. The High Court of Australia was tasked with addressing several legal issues, including the admissibility of similar fact evidence concerning the appellant's past sexual abuse of patients, and the potential impact of this evidence on the conviction. Additionally, the court considered whether the admission of an unidentified Asian female's complaint about being drugged by the appellant could be justified as an exception to the hearsay rule. The court also examined whether any errors in the admission of evidence or objections not raised during the trial constituted a miscarriage of justice that could invalidate the conviction.

In its reasoning, the court found that the evidence of the appellant's propensity to drug and sexually assault female patients was relevant to establishing his intent and should have been admitted. The court held that the evidence of the unidentified Asian female's complaint could be considered under the exceptions to the hearsay rule, as it involved a representation of the drugging by someone on behalf of the victim. Despite acknowledging that the technical inadmissibility of some evidence could result in the quashing of a conviction, the court concluded that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that would invalidate the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld, as the court determined that the jury would likely have reached the same verdict even in the absence of the potentially inadmissible evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal should be 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.