R v Roy Summary | CaseChat AU

[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.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roy, the appellant, Paul Joseph Roy, was appealing against his conviction. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, comprising Fitzgerald P, Davies JA, and Mackenzie J. The primary issue before the Court was whether the conviction should be quashed due to a miscarriage of justice related to a tape recording, and if so, whether the appropriate course of action would be to enter a verdict of acquittal or order a retrial. The prosecution conceded that the conviction should indeed be quashed due to the miscarriage of justice.

The appellant's counsel, Mrs McGinness, argued that a retrial should not occur as any conviction resulting from such a trial would be inherently unsafe and unsatisfactory, particularly given the questionable reliability of the prosecution's key witness, Proctor. However, the Court found that the appellant could potentially be convicted based on the evidence available to the prosecution. Therefore, the Court ruled in favour of ordering a retrial to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly and justly.

The Court's decision was based on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial could still result in a conviction for the appellant. Consequently, the Court quashed the original conviction and ordered a retrial to allow for a proper judicial process. Additionally, the appellant's legal representative informed the Court that an application for bail would be made to the District Court, given that the appellant was currently in custody.

R v Roy

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established