R v Mead

Case [2017] QCA 229


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mead [2017] QCA 229

PARTIES:

R
v

MEAD, Raymond John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 211 of 2016
SC No 169 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 2 August 2016 (Ann Lyons J)

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore 6 October 2017
Reasons delivered 11 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 October 2017

JUDGE:

Gotterson JA

ORDERS:

Orders delivered 6 October 2017:

The applications to adduce evidence from Marlene Locke, Dr Alex Olumbe, Raechel Mead, Kayla Mead and Krystal Mead are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of murder and pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant appealed against his conviction and applied for leave to appeal against his sentence – where the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal Registry for subpoenas to be issued to five persons – where one of the persons is the mother of the deceased and the victim of the assault – where one of the persons is a forensic pathologist who testified at the applicant’s trial – where three of the persons are the applicant’s daughters – where the applicant seeks leave to adduce evidence from these five persons to assist in his arguments on appeal – where two of the witnesses would be hostile witnesses and require cross-examination – where the evidence is not fresh evidence – whether the evidence sought to be adduced is relevant – whether the evidence sought to be adduced would assist in considering the grounds of appeal

R v Spina[2012] QCA 179, cited
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. GOTTERSON JA:  On 2 August 2016, Raymond John Mead was found guilty at a trial of the murder of his step-daughter, Sherelle Anne Amelia Locke, on 16 February 2014 at Boronia Heights.  At the beginning of the trial, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter but the plea was not accepted by the Crown.  He also pleaded guilty to a second count that, on the same date, he unlawfully assaulted the deceased’s mother and his then partner, Marlene Sherelle Mead (now Marlene Locke), and did her bodily harm.  Each offence was charged as a domestic violence offence.

  2. Mr Mead was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and to a concurrent term of two years’ imprisonment on the unlawful assault count.  For reasons which it is unnecessary to detail here, his parole eligibility date was postponed by six months beyond the expiration of the minimum term of 20 years which he must serve on the murder conviction.  The…

Continue reading R v Mead

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mead [2017] QCA 229
Case
[2017] QCA 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mead, was convicted by a jury of the murder of his partner and pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to consider his application to adduce evidence from five persons to assist in his arguments on appeal, including his mother, the victim of the assault, a forensic pathologist who testified at his trial, and his three daughters. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence sought to be adduced was relevant and whether it would assist in considering the grounds of appeal.

The court held that the evidence sought to be adduced was not fresh evidence and did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that no new evidence should be adduced on an appeal against conviction. The court also held that the evidence was not relevant to any of the grounds of appeal and would not assist in considering them. The court noted that two of the witnesses would be hostile and require cross-examination, which would be inappropriate in the context of an appeal against conviction. The court held that the application to adduce evidence from the five persons should be refused.

The court held that the application to adduce evidence from the five persons should be refused. The court noted that the evidence was not relevant to any of the grounds of appeal and would not assist in considering them. The court also noted that two of the witnesses would be hostile and require cross-examination, which would be inappropriate in the context of an appeal against conviction. The court held that the application to adduce evidence from the five persons should be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders delivered 6 October 2017:

The applications to adduce evidence from Marlene Locke, Dr Alex Olumbe, Raechel Mead, Kayla Mead and Krystal Mead are refused.

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.