R v Robertson

Case [2015] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robertson & Ors [2015] QCA 11

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTSON, Wayne Thomas
(appellant)
KNIGHT, Mark Dempsey
(appellant)
WILLIAMS, Wesley Robert
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 85 of 2012
CA No 86 of 2012
CA No 87 of 2012
SC No 188 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Dismiss each appellant’s appeal against conviction.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – STATEMENT OF VICTIM WHO LATER DIED – where the appellants argued error in a pre-trial ruling that statements of the deceased were admissible in evidence pursuant to s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and that the trial judge erred in refusing to re-open the ruling – where the appellants contended that some of the statements were irrelevant and should not have been admitted – where s 93B applies to representations made in “circumstances” making it (if they are made shortly after the events they concern) unlikely that they are fabrications or (if not made shortly after) highly probable that they are reliable – where the appellants contended that there was no evidence that some of the statements were made shortly after the events they concerned – where the appellants contended that “circumstances” should be given an expansive meaning – whether the statements were both relevant and admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule by reason of the application of s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellants were convicted of murder after a re-trial – where the appellants argued that a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence (suicide) had not been excluded – where there was no forensic evidence against the appellants – where the appellants argued that the evidence given by the witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable – where the appellants argued that the verdicts were not reasonably open to the jury upon the evidence – whether the verdicts were unreasonable

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 590AA
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B

R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386, applied
R v Knight & Ors[2010] QCA 372, related
R v Knight & Ors (No 2) [2009] QSC 449, related
R v Lester (2008) 190 A Crim R 468; [2008] QCA 354, applied
R v Williams (2000) 119 A Crim R 490; [2000] FCA 1868, considered
Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378; [1971] UKPC 23, considered
Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, considered
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17,…

Continue reading R v Robertson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Robertson [2015] QCA 11
Case
[2015] QCA 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robertson, the appellants, who had been convicted of murder, appealed against their convictions, arguing that errors in the trial process rendered their convictions unsafe. The primary focus of the appeal was the admissibility of statements made by the deceased victim under section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), as well as the reasonableness of the jury's verdicts in light of the evidence presented. The appellants argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain statements of the deceased as evidence and that the trial judge had also erred in refusing to re-open the ruling. They further contended that some of the statements were irrelevant and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the statements were made in circumstances that made them unlikely to be fabrications or highly probable to be reliable.

The court was tasked with determining whether the statements made by the deceased were admissible under section 93B, which pertains to representations made in circumstances that make them unlikely to be fabrications or highly probable to be reliable. The appellants argued that there was no evidence to show that some statements were made shortly after the events they concerned, and they also contended that the term "circumstances" should be interpreted expansively. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the verdicts of the jury were reasonable in light of the evidence presented. The appellants argued that a reasonable hypothesis consistent with their innocence had not been excluded, and they contended that the evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the statements of the deceased under section 93B of the Evidence Act. It was held that the statements were made in circumstances that made them unlikely to be fabrications and highly probable to be reliable. The court also concluded that the verdicts of the jury were reasonably open on the evidence and that the jury was entitled to reject the hypothesis of suicide. The court found that the appellants' arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence and the unreliability of witness testimony did not undermine the verdicts. Consequently, the appeals against conviction were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss each appellant’s appeal against conviction.

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.