R v Murphy - [2006] QCA 14

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murphy [2006] QCA 14

PARTIES:

R
v
MURPHY, Aaron Lance
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 314 of 2005
DC No 187 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMP ON:

8 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 February 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson and Williams JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – whether jury should have been discharged after being subjected to intimidating behaviour – whether the actions would have affected the jury’s ability to discharge their responsibility impartially – whether a re-trial should have been ordered

R v Webb (1993-4) 181 CLR 41, 53, distinguished

R v Fox (1998) QCA 121, CA No 50 of 1998, 12 June 1998, distinguished

COUNSEL:

B G Devereaux SC for the applicant
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Ipswich after a two day trial of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm committed while in company.

The Crown case was that the appellant had struck the complainant while the appellant was part of a group who had set upon the complainant police officer. The jury deliberated for about three hours before returning its verdict in the course of which it sought redirections.

The only ground of appeal which is pursued reads as follows:

"During the trial the jury advised the Court that an Aboriginal male in the rear of the Court was staring at them and causing concerns. The jury should have been discharged and a re-trial ordered."

The appellant is an Aboriginal man.

The transcript shows that on 16th November 2005, which was the second day of the trial, the trial Judge, just before commencing her summing-up to the jury, made the following statements in the absence of the jury in the Court room:

"Some ladies on the jury have said that there is a young Aboriginal fellow up the back in the public gallery who keeps looking around and staring at them and it is worrying them. Glaring at them, they say. It is an open court, but I think it would be in the best interests of Mr Murphy (who is the appellant) if he leaves."

- meaning obviously the member of the public in the gallery.

"I actually didn't see him doing it but he was looking around to get a better look at Mr Lehane (the Crown Prosecutor) at one stage, but I don't think he was glaring at the jury. I don't think it's any cause for a mistrial…

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 Murphy

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [2006] QCA 14
Case: [2006] QCA 14
Decision Date: 8 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Murphy, was convicted of multiple criminal offences and appealed against his conviction. The appeal was based on the contention that the jury should have been discharged after being subjected to intimidating behaviour. The appellant argued that the jury’s ability to discharge their responsibility impartially was compromised. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The High Court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in not discharging the jury, and whether the actions of the intimidating behaviour would have affected the jury’s ability to discharge their responsibility impartially. The court considered the effect of the intimidating behaviour on the jury, and whether a re-trial should have been ordered. The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in not discharging the jury, and that the actions of the intimidating behaviour did not affect the jury’s ability to discharge their responsibility impartially. The court held that the trial judge had considered all the relevant factors and that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s discretion. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v Murphy [2006] QCA 14
PARTIES:	R v MURPHY, Aaron Lance (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 314 of 2005 DC No 187 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMP ON:	8 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 February 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson and Williams JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – whether jury should have been discharged after being subjected to intimidating behaviour – whether the actions would have affected the jury’s ability to discharge their responsibility impartially – whether a re-trial should have been ordered R v Webb (1993-4) 181 CLR 41, 53, distinguished R v Fox (1998) QCA 121, CA No 50 of 1998, 12 June 1998, distinguished
COUNSEL:	B G Devereaux SC for the applicant S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent