R v Melisha McIvor - [2025] QDC 116

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Melisha McIvor [2025] QDC 116

PARTIES:

THE KING
v
MELISHA MCIVOR
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO

326 of 2024

DIVISION:

Application

PROCEEDING:

Application for ‘no case’ ruling

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DEVIVERED ON:

22 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane District Court

HEARING DATE:

7 August 2025

JUDGE:

Farnden KC DCJ

RULING:

There is no case to answer on the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF SATISFACTION – SUFFICIENCY – GENERALLY – where the applicant is charged with attempt to pervert justice by coercion of witnesses – where the applicant makes an application for a ruling that there is no case to answer – whether, on the evidence as it stands, the applicant could lawfully be convicted

CASES:

Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51, cited
Librizzi v Western Australia (2006) 167 A Crim R 26, cited
R v Stewart; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1989] 1 Qd R 590, cited

COUNSEL:

J Reeves for the applicant/defendant
S Farrelly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Osborne Butler for the applicant/defendant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Application

This is an application for a ruling that there is no case to answer on the Crown case as particularised for the sole offence on the indictment of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The applicant did not seek an order that the indictment be permanently stayed if I find that there is no case to answer in relation to the charge. The Crown has indicated that the indictment will be discontinued upon any ruling that there is no case to answer in relation to the charge.

The power sought to be exercised

The pre-requisites to be met before such an application can fall for determination
pre-trial were confirmed in R v Gesa and Nona; ex parte Attorney-General(Qld) [2001] 2 Qd R 72 at paragraph [18], being:
(a)firstly, where the facts are either agreed or undisputed; and
(b)secondly, those facts are incapable of supporting a guilty verdict; and
(c)where the Crown concedes that those facts represent the highest the Crown case can be put.
In this case I proceed on the accepted basis that my decision should be based on the evidence tendered at the outset of the hearing of this application as referred to within this judgment.
The question of law to be decided is whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could lawfully be convicted. The approach that must be taken is that laid down by the High Court in Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207, 214-215 as follows:
“… if there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague) which can be taken into account by the jury in its deliberations and that evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the jury for its decision. Or, to put…

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 Melisha McIvor

Details

AGLC: R v Melisha McIvor [2025] QDC 116
Case: [2025] QDC 116
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Melisha McIvor, the applicant faced charges related to attempting to pervert the course of justice through witness coercion. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought a ruling that there was no case to answer based on the evidence presented. The primary legal issue before the court was whether, considering the evidence at that stage, it was possible to lawfully convict the applicant of the charged offence.

The court examined the standard of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It assessed whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove each element of the offence to the requisite standard. The applicant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary intent and conduct required to pervert the course of justice. The court weighed the strength of the evidence and the applicable legal principles in determining whether the prosecution had made out a case sufficient to warrant a conviction. It concluded that the evidence was adequate to support a conviction if the case proceeded to trial.

The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a case against the applicant. The evidence included statements from witnesses and other relevant materials that demonstrated the applicant's actions met the criteria for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Consequently, the court denied the applicant's application for a ruling that there was no case to answer. The matter proceeded to trial, allowing the jury to consider the evidence and decide on the applicant's guilt.

Orders