R v Metius - [2009] QCA 3

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Metius [2009] QCA 3

PARTIES:

R
v
METIUS, Candaneace Lea
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 380 of 2007
SC No 666 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – INDIVIDUAL JURORS – appellant charged with murder of infant son – after jury retired, juror number 12 became distressed and asked for a doctor – she told the bailiff she felt uneasy and threatened by the other jurors and did not feel safe with them – judge heard submissions from counsel – judge ordered juror be discharged – next morning, judge ordered that trial continue with remaining 11 jurors – judge did not give reasons for either decision – whether judge erred in ordering either that juror number 12 be discharged or that trial continue with remaining jurors – whether appellant deprived of right to a fair trial

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 56, s 57

Evans v The Queen (2007) 82 ALJR 250; [2007] HCA 59, considered
R v Hutchings [2007] 1 Qd R 25; [2006] QCA 219, considered
R v Shaw (2007) 48 MVR 245; [2007] QCA 231, considered
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant pleaded not guilty on 19 November 2007 to murdering her infant son on 21 October 2004. Her trial proceeded before a judge and jury in the Supreme Court at Brisbane over seven court days. On 28 November 2007 she was convicted of murder. She appeals against her conviction contending that the trial judge erred in discharging one juror and continuing the trial with the remaining 11 jurors where the charge was murder; there was clear evidence of disharmony within the jury room; one of the jurors was feeling intimidated; and the discharge took place without consideration as to whether the trial should continue with less than 12 jurors.

The background facts

The appellant's killing of the child was recorded on video tape.[1] Counsel for the appellant at trial accepted that she "smothered her child in the Mater Children's Hospital in the late evening of 20th of October 2004 and into the early morning of the 21st and … those physical actions at law caused the death of her baby son". The defence case was that…

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 Metius

Details

AGLC: R v Metius [2009] QCA 3
Case: [2009] QCA 3
Decision Date: 6 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Metius, the appellant was charged with the murder of his infant son. Following the jury's retirement, juror number 12 became distressed and requested medical assistance. The juror informed the bailiff that she felt threatened by the other jurors and did not feel safe in their presence. The judge heard submissions from counsel and ordered the juror to be discharged. The following morning, the trial continued with the remaining eleven jurors, and the judge did not provide any reasons for either decision. The primary legal issues were whether the judge erred in discharging juror number 12 and whether the appellant was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the continuation of the trial with eleven jurors.

The court examined the principles surrounding the discharge of a juror and the continuation of a trial with a reduced number of jurors. It was established that a judge has the discretion to discharge a juror if they are unable to perform their duties due to distress or other valid reasons. However, the court also recognised that the continuation of a trial with eleven jurors, as opposed to a full jury of twelve, could potentially impact the fairness of the trial. The court considered whether the judge's failure to provide reasons for discharging the juror and continuing the trial with eleven jurors constituted an error that deprived the appellant of his right to a fair trial.

Ultimately, the court found that the judge did not err in discharging juror number 12 or in continuing the trial with eleven jurors. The court held that the judge's decision was within their discretion and did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

CITATION:	R v Metius [2009] QCA 3
PARTIES:	R v METIUS, Candaneace Lea (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 380 of 2007 SC No 666 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – INDIVIDUAL JURORS – appellant charged with murder of infant son – after jury retired, juror number 12 became distressed and asked for a doctor – she told the bailiff she felt uneasy and threatened by the other jurors and did not feel safe with them – judge heard submissions from counsel – judge ordered juror be discharged – next morning, judge ordered that trial continue with remaining 11 jurors – judge did not give reasons for either decision – whether judge erred in ordering either that juror number 12 be discharged or that trial continue with remaining jurors – whether appellant deprived of right to a fair trial Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 56, s 57 Evans v The Queen (2007) 82 ALJR 250; [2007] HCA 59, considered R v Hutchings [2007] 1 Qd R 25; [2006] QCA 219, considered R v Shaw (2007) 48 MVR 245; [2007] QCA 231, considered Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent