R v Muniz - [2016] QCA 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Muniz [2016] QCA 210

PARTIES:

R
v
MUNIZ, Rafael Arruda
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 32 of 2016
SC No 822 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 January 2016

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2016

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Dismiss the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where the appellant makes five complaints as to the prosecutor’s conduct at trial, namely that the prosecutor: impermissibly put a witness’ motive to lie into question; sought to enhance the credibility of a witness by putting into evidence the witness’ undertaking to testify against multiple accused persons; used language that departed from the standard expected of a prosecutor; misstated the effect of admitted DNA evidence; and put an imprecise argument to the jury that had no evidential foundation – whether the prosecutor’s conduct, considered individually or cumulatively, caused a miscarriage of justice

Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30, cited
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, considered
R v Coss[2016] QCA 44, cited
R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326, cited
R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, cited
R v Wheatley[2012] QCA 55, cited
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42, cited

COUNSEL:

B J Power for the appellant
L K Crowley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES CJ: I agree with the reasons of Philip McMurdo JA and the order he proposes.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Philip McMurdo JA and with the reasons given by his Honour.
PHILIP McMURDO JA: After a trial the appellant was convicted of an offence of the possession of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, that was unlawfully imported in contravention of s 307.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). He was sentenced to a term of seven and a half years imprisonment, with a non‑parole period fixed at four and a half years. He has abandoned his application for leave to appeal against that sentence. He appeals against his conviction, making a number of complaints about the conduct of the prosecutor and what is said to have been the failure of the trial judge to avoid the consequences of that conduct, which is said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
On 26 November 2013, police…

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 Muniz

Details

AGLC: R v Muniz [2016] QCA 210
Case: [2016] QCA 210
Decision Date: 26 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Muniz, the appellant sought an appeal against his conviction for possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. The decision was made by a jury. The appellant raised five complaints regarding the prosecutor’s conduct during the trial, arguing that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. These complaints included allegations that the prosecutor questioned a witness's motives, enhanced a witness's credibility by referencing their testimony against multiple defendants, used inappropriate language, misrepresented the effect of DNA evidence, and presented an imprecise argument to the jury without evidentiary support.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecutor's conduct, either individually or cumulatively, led to a miscarriage of justice. This required an assessment of the severity and impact of each complaint, as well as their combined effect on the fairness of the trial. The court examined the prosecutor's conduct in light of legal standards and the principles governing prosecutorial conduct in criminal trials.

After a detailed analysis of the prosecutor's conduct, the court concluded that none of the complaints, individually or collectively, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the prosecutor's actions did not undermine the fairness of the trial to the extent required to overturn the conviction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the appeal.

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 Muniz [2016] QCA 210
PARTIES:	R v MUNIZ, Rafael Arruda (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 32 of 2016 SC No 822 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 January 2016
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2016
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Dismiss the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where the appellant makes five complaints as to the prosecutor’s conduct at trial, namely that the prosecutor: impermissibly put a witness’ motive to lie into question; sought to enhance the credibility of a witness by putting into evidence the witness’ undertaking to testify against multiple accused persons; used language that departed from the standard expected of a prosecutor; misstated the effect of admitted DNA evidence; and put an imprecise argument to the jury that had no evidential foundation – whether the prosecutor’s conduct, considered individually or cumulatively, caused a miscarriage of justice Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30, cited Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, considered R v Coss[2016] QCA 44, cited R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326, cited R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, cited R v Wheatley[2012] QCA 55, cited Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42, cited
COUNSEL:	B J Power for the appellant L K Crowley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent