R v Schulz - [2025] QCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Schulz [2025] QCA 75

PARTIES:

R
v
SCHULZ, Judith Ann
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 274 of 2024
DC No 2113 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 9 December 2024 (Loury KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 16 May 2025
Date of Publication of Reasons: 20 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ, Bradley JA and Callaghan J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 16 May 2025

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The verdicts of guilty below be set aside.

3.   There be a new trial in respect of counts 3 and 4.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – COMPOSITION OF JURY – where the appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of unlawful stalking – where the appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a parole release date of 9 July 2025 – where a series of notes from the jury were brought to the attention of the trial judge – where, based on the contents of those notes, there was an application to discharge the whole of the jury by defence counsel at trial – where the application was refused and the trial judge discharged a single juror – whether the trial judge erred in law and a miscarriage of justice occurred because of the discharge of the juror

Criminal Code (Qld), s 615 (repealed)
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 56, s 60

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, applied
Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264; [1985] HCA 72, cited
R v Orgles [1994] 1 WLR 108, cited
R v PAR [2015] 1 Qd R 15; [2014] QCA 248, cited
R v Pearce (2022) 10 QR 369; [2022] QCA 43, cited
R v Roberts [2005] 1 Qd R 408; [2004] QCA 366, cited
R v Tarasiuk[2019] QCA 165, distinguished
Winsor v The Queen [1866] LR 1 QB 390, cited
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52, followed

COUNSEL:

P J Wilson for the appellant
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOWSKILL CJ: I agree, for the reasons given by Bradley JA, that it was not open on the evidence before the learned trial judge, including the juror’s own statements, to have found that the discharged juror “is not impartial” for the purposes of s 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld). There were troubling aspects to that juror’s seventh note, including her apparent perception that it was within the power of the jury to “vote” that she “should go”. But the seventh note did not reveal a basis to conclude the juror herself…

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 Schulz

Details

AGLC: R v Schulz [2025] QCA 75
Case: [2025] QCA 75
Decision Date: 20 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court was from the appellant, Schulz, who sought to overturn his conviction on two counts of unlawful stalking. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the case. The appellant's conviction was made by a jury, and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with a parole release date set for 9 July 2025. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge's decision to discharge a single juror, after considering notes from the jury, was legally sound or if it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The defence had argued at trial that the entire jury should be discharged due to the irregularities, but the trial judge only discharged one juror.

The court was required to consider whether the trial judge's decision to discharge a single juror, rather than the entire jury, was an error of law. This required an analysis of the contents of the jury's notes and an assessment of whether this decision led to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the notes in detail, assessing their significance and the trial judge's response to them. The court also considered the standard practice for dealing with jury irregularities and whether the trial judge's decision fell outside these parameters. The court found that the trial judge's decision to discharge a single juror, rather than the entire jury, was indeed an error of law, as it did not align with established legal principles regarding jury irregularities.

The appeal was allowed, and the verdicts of guilty were set aside. The court concluded that the error in discharging only one juror, rather than the entire jury, constituted a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial in respect of counts 3 and 4. This decision was made on 16 May 2025, and the appellant's conviction was overturned pending a retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 16 May 2025

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The verdicts of guilty below be set aside.

3. There be a new trial in respect of counts 3 and 4.

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.

CITATION:	R v Schulz [2025] QCA 75
PARTIES:	R v SCHULZ, Judith Ann (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 274 of 2024 DC No 2113 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 9 December 2024 (Loury KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 16 May 2025 Date of Publication of Reasons: 20 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2025
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ, Bradley JA and Callaghan J
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 16 May 2025 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The verdicts of guilty below be set aside. 3. There be a new trial in respect of counts 3 and 4.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – COMPOSITION OF JURY – where the appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of unlawful stalking – where the appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a parole release date of 9 July 2025 – where a series of notes from the jury were brought to the attention of the trial judge – where, based on the contents of those notes, there was an application to discharge the whole of the jury by defence counsel at trial – where the application was refused and the trial judge discharged a single juror – whether the trial judge erred in law and a miscarriage of justice occurred because of the discharge of the juror Criminal Code (Qld), s 615 (repealed) Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 56, s 60 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, applied Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264; [1985] HCA 72, cited R v Orgles [1994] 1 WLR 108, cited R v PAR [2015] 1 Qd R 15; [2014] QCA 248, cited R v Pearce (2022) 10 QR 369; [2022] QCA 43, cited R v Roberts [2005] 1 Qd R 408; [2004] QCA 366, cited R v Tarasiuk[2019] QCA 165, distinguished Winsor v The Queen [1866] LR 1 QB 390, cited Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52, followed
COUNSEL:	P J Wilson for the appellant C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent