R v Roy

[1997] QCA 122

[1997] QCA 122

COURT OF APPEAL
FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA

MACKENZIE J

CA No 510 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

PAUL JOSEPH ROY Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 22/04/97
220497 D.1 T9/LE9 M/T COA70/97
THE PRESIDENT: In this matter it is conceded for the
prosecution that the conviction, the subject of the appeal,
should be quashed because of a miscarriage of the trial in
relation to a tape-recording and it is unnecessary to say more
about that.

The only issue then is whether there ought be a verdict of acquittal entered or a retrial should be ordered.

Mrs McGinness for the appellant has contended that there should be no retrial because any conviction entered at the end of such a trial would necessarily be unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the state of the prosecution and in particular the unsatisfactory evidence of the main prosecution witness, one Proctor.

The Court is not persuaded at this time that the appellant could not properly be convicted on the evidence apparently available to the prosecution and accordingly in the circumstances orders that there be a retrial.

No other orders are necessary, are they?

MR MEREDITH: He is in custody, Your Honour, but I understand some requests were made through the Court and I understand there will be an application for bail this afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: That will be made by affidavit.
MACKENZIE J: That is going to the Chamber Judge, is it?
MR MEREDITH: To the District Court in fact because there is an indictment before the District Court either in Brisbane or Ipswich.
MACKENZIE J: All right.
220497 D.1 T9/LE9 M/T COA70/97
MR MEREDITH: The Crown has indicated as long as the reporting condition is not opposed-----

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it will not take the Judge long.

-----