R v Renton - [1997] QCA 441

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 441
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 188 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Renton]

THE QUEEN

MARC ANDRE RENTON

(Applicant) Appellant
Macrossan CJ
Williams J
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 12 December 1997

Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, all concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Appeal against conviction - whether conduct of co-accused and her de facto prejudiced appellant’s right to a fair trial - whether verdicts inconsistent - whether adequate direction in relation to identification evidence - flaws in evidence identifying appellant - strength of circumstantial case against appellant - appeal dismissed.
CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Appeal against sentence - 14 years imprisonment not to be released on parole before 28 April 2004 - significant criminal history - previous armed robberies - offences committed very shortly after released on home detention - application refused.
Domican v. R. (1992) 173 CLR 555 Mackenzie v. R. (1996) 71 ALJR 91 R. v. Turnbull [1977] QB 224
Counsel:	Mr M Johnson for the applicant/appellant. Mr D Bullock for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	25 July 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Judgment delivered 12 December 1997

The reasons prepared by Williams J refer to relevant factual matters and the issues arising on the appeal. I agree with the conclusions expressed by the Judge and with the reasons he gives. I shall add some further observations.

As Williams J points out and as the trial Judge instructed the jury, the Crown case on all charges was a circumstantial one and did not depend upon identification evidence strictly so called since no witness purported to identify the appellant. However, the evidence which witnesses variously expressed, indicating a physical similarity between an observed offender and the appellant was not an unimportant part of the Crown’s circumstantial case. The trial Judge in the circumstances gave a full direction of the kind usually given when proof of guilt depends upon identification but in those directions he maintained an emphasis upon the fact that the evidence of physical similarities stopped short of amounting to a claim of definite identification. No redirection was asked for upon the way in which the Judge dealt with these issues. Taking the summing-up as a whole the criticisms raised by counsel for the appellant should not be accepted. Nor should it be accepted on what has been said so far that any material error affected the trial or that some miscarriage of justice occurred.

An attack was also made upon the jury’s verdicts upon the basis that those returned on counts number one and two were inconsistent.

Count one involving the Morningside bank robbery produced a verdict of not guilty yet the jury found the appellant guilty of unlawfully using a motor…

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 Renton

Details

AGLC: R v Renton [1997] QCA 441
Case: [1997] QCA 441
Decision Date: 12/12/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Renton involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for armed robbery. The appellant argued that the conduct of a co-accused and her de facto, along with the trial judge's directions regarding identification evidence, had prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The court was required to determine whether the conduct of the co-accused and her de facto prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial, whether the verdicts were inconsistent, and whether the trial judge provided adequate direction in relation to identification evidence. Additionally, the court examined the strength of the circumstantial case against the appellant.

The court found that the conduct of the co-accused and her de facto did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial, as the evidence against him was substantial and independent of the evidence given by the co-accused. The court also determined that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury was properly directed to consider each count separately. Regarding the direction in relation to identification evidence, the court held that the trial judge provided adequate direction, and the jury was properly cautioned about the dangers of convicting on identification evidence alone. The circumstantial evidence against the appellant was found to be strong, and the jury was properly directed to consider it in light of the whole case.

The court concluded that the appellant's appeal against his conviction should be dismissed. The evidence against him was substantial and independent of the evidence given by the co-accused, and the trial judge provided adequate direction in relation to identification evidence. The jury was properly directed to consider the circumstantial evidence in light of the whole case, and the verdicts were not inconsistent. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders