SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Roberts & Pearce [2012] QCA 82
PARTIES:
R
v
ROBERTS, Ashley
(appellant)R
v
PEARCE, Blaze Seaton
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 193 of 2011
CA No 212 of 2011
SC No 902 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
5 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 February 2012
JUDGES:
Chief Justice and White JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, Chief Justice dissenting in partORDER:
1. Dismiss Roberts’ appeal against conviction.
2. Allow Pearce’s appeal against conviction and order a new trial.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IN GENERAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – IN GENERAL – where Roberts and Pearce convicted of murder and a third man convicted of being an accessory to murder after the fact at the same trial – where some statements made by the accused were inadmissible against each other – where conduct as an indicator of guilt put to the jury – whether separate trials should have been ordered – whether the direction as to conduct as an indicator of guilt sufficiently distinguished between consciousness of murder or some other act – whether appeal should be allowed
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL – where Pearce convicted of murder as an aider – where jury directed such a conviction required the jury to be satisfied of three things – whether there was a misdirection as to whether Pearce was aiding – whether there was a miscarriage of justice
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(c)
Giorganni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; [1985] HCA 29, followed
R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39, followed
R v Jeffrey [2003] 2 Qd R 306; [1997] QCA 460, followed
R v Mitchell [2008] 2 Qd R 142; [2007] QCA 267, followed
R v Roughan& Jones (2007) 179 A Crim R 389; [2007] QCA 443, considered
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30, citedCOUNSEL:
J Allen for the appellant, Roberts
M J Copley for the appellant, Pearce
R G Martin SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Roberts
Russo Mahon Lawyers for the appellant, Pearce
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
CHIEF JUSTICE:
Introduction
The appellants, together with Patrick Doyle, were tried for the murder of Kevin Brack at premises in Fortitude Valley on 17 February 2009. After a three week trial, each of the appellants was convicted of murder, and Doyle was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to the offence of murder.
The appellant Roberts appeals on grounds that the…
Continue reading R v Roberts and Pearce
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Roberts & Pearce [2012] QCA 82
- Case
- [2012] QCA 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the issue of separate trials and found that while some statements made by the accused were inadmissible against each other, this did not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the direction on conduct as an indicator of guilt adequately distinguished between consciousness of guilt for murder and other acts. The court held that while the direction was not ideal, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. However, regarding Pearce's conviction as an aider, the court found that there was a misdirection concerning the requirement for the jury to be satisfied that Pearce was aiding. This led to a miscarriage of justice for Pearce.
The court dismissed Roberts’ appeal against conviction, upholding the original decision. However, it allowed Pearce’s appeal against conviction and ordered a new trial due to the misdirection regarding the aiding requirement. The court's decision highlights the importance of clear jury directions and the potential consequences of misdirection in criminal trials.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Dismiss Roberts’ appeal against conviction.
2. Allow Pearce’s appeal against conviction and order a new trial.
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.