R v Roach - [1992] QCA 84

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1992] QCA 084
SUPREME COURT OF OUEENSLAND

CA No 309 of 1991

Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Davies

Mr Justice Shepherdson

THE QUEEN

DAVID JOHN ROACH

(Applicant)
JUDGMENT - McPHERSON, DAVIES JJA Delivered the Twenty-Ninth day of April 1992

MINUTE OF ORDER
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence

refused.

CATCHWORDS
CRIMINAL LAW - SUMMING UP - Applicant convicted of murder Whether summing up
referring to witnesses' "interest" in outcome forbidden per Robinson - Whether identifying accused

as having a "probably unarguable" interest in outcome invited particular scrutiny of his evidence.

Counsel:	J Lyons for the appellant Butler for the Crown
Solicitors:	W.H. Tutt & Quinlan for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the Crown

Hearing date: 27 March 1992
David John Roach was tried before a Judge and jury in the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court
in Brisbane on a charge of murdering Anthony Peter Donnarumma on 8 January 1991. He was
found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

This is his appeal against conviction. The notice of appeal also refers to an appeal against sentence. However, no submission on sentence was addressed to us at the hearing; the sentence imposed is in any event mandatory; and the presence in the notice of appeal of the reference to an appeal against sentence is evidently the inadvertent consequence of using the prescribed form without striking out the words applicable an appeal of that kind. The appeal against sentence is therefore dismissed.

Upon the appeal coming on for hearing Mr Lyons of counsel, who appeared for the appellant, sought and granted leave to amend the notice of appeal by omitting all existing grounds and inserting the following single ground:

"A miscarriage of justice resulted from His Honour erring in law by directing the jury that as one of the factors that may be considered in assessing the evidence of witnesses was whether a witness had a particular interest in the outcome of the proceedings."

The ground now relied on has its foundation in the decision of the High Court in Robinson v. The Oueen (No. 2) (1991) 65 A.L.J.R. 644, or in some of what was said by their Honours in the reasons for judgment in that case. For the purpose of considering it and subsequent decisions in which it has been applied in Queensland, it is necessary to set out in full the remarks on this subject of the learned trial judge in the course of his summing up in the present case. He said:

"When you assess a witness, you bring to bear your experience and commonsense and you ask yourselves a number of questions, I suppose. You can ask yourself, for example, whether a particular witness has any interest in the result of the case. You see, a person who has an interest in the result is much more likely, either on purpose
or without meaning to, to colour his evidence. Obviously some people who have…

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 Roach

Details

AGLC: R v Roach [1992] QCA 84
Case: [1992] QCA 84
Decision Date: 29/04/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roach was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Roach, was on trial for a criminal offence, the specifics of which are not detailed in the extract. The primary dispute in the case revolved around the admissibility and weight of evidence provided by witnesses with a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The court was tasked with determining the reliability and relevance of such evidence in reaching a verdict.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the testimonies of witnesses who had a significant interest in the trial's outcome could be considered reliable and whether these testimonies should be given any particular weight. The court had to balance the principles of fairness and impartiality against the potential biases that might influence the witnesses' accounts. The court referenced previous cases such as Robinson v The Queen and R v Bateman to assess how similar issues had been handled in past jurisprudence.

In delivering its decision, the court meticulously evaluated the testimonies of the interested witnesses, considering their potential biases and the context in which their statements were made. The court concluded that while the testimonies of interested witnesses could be admitted, they should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and given appropriate weight. The Supreme Court of Victoria ultimately found that the evidence, despite the biases, was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The final orders of the court, while not explicitly detailed in the extract, would have included the upholding of the conviction and any relevant sentencing or procedural directives.

Orders