R v Semyraha - [2000] QCA 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Semyraha [2000] QCA 303

PARTIES: R
v
SEMYRAHA, Adrian James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 373 of 1999
SC No 552 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 1 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 14 July 2000

JUDGES: Davies and McPherson JJA and Mullins J
Joint reasons for judgment of Davies JA and Mullins J; separate reasons of McPherson JA concurring as to the order made.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – DETERMINATION OF ADMISSIBILITY – VOIR DIRE PROCEEDINGS – appellant convicted of murder – prosecution relied upon recorded police interview where certain confessional statements were made –challenge to the admissibility and the voluntariness of the evidence on a voir dire – appellant alleged that the confessional statements were induced by the impropriety of police conduct – where appellant confessed in more inculpatory terms than allegedly told by police – where the learned trial judge questioned and permitted cross-examination of the appellant with respect to matters tending to establish the truth of the confession – consideration of the competing principles as to when such questioning in respect to the voluntariness of a confession and the appellant's credit is permitted – whether such questioning should be permitted – whether the learned trial judge erred by wrongly taking into account the matters raised on the voir dire

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL BY JUSTICE OR CORONER – POWERS AND DUTIES OF MAGISTRATE OR CORONER – DECISION TO COMMIT OR DISCHARGE

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the evidence of the co-accused's father obtained at committal proceedings was tendered to the jury at trial – where reference was made in the summing up to the purpose and role of committal proceedings and prosecuting authorities – whether the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury concerning the committal of the appellant for trial

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15(1)

Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, considered
De Clercq v The Queen (1968) 70 DLR (2d) 530, considered
Frijaf v The Queen [1982] WAR 128, considered
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, considered
R v Gray [1964] QdR 373, considered
R v Post and Georgee [1982] QdR 495, not followed
R v Toner [1966] QWN 44, not followed
Wong Kam-Ming v The Queen [1980] AC 247, distinguished

COUNSEL:
M J Burns for appellant (pro bono)

M J Byrne QC for respondent

SOLICITORS: No representation for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA and MULLINS J: The appellant was convicted of murder, after a trial in the…

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 Semyraha

Details

AGLC: R v Semyraha [2000] QCA 303
Case: [2000] QCA 303
Decision Date: 1 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution relied on a recorded police interview where the appellant made certain confessional statements. The appellant challenged the admissibility and voluntariness of these statements during a voir dire. The appellant claimed that the statements were induced by improper police conduct, despite the appellant's confession containing more inculpatory details than what was allegedly communicated by the police. The trial judge questioned and permitted cross-examination of the appellant concerning matters that tended to establish the truth of the confession. The appeal raised issues concerning the admissibility of the statements, the trial judge's handling of the voir dire, and the direction given to the jury regarding the committal of the appellant for trial.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred by considering the matters raised during the voir dire and whether this affected the voluntariness of the appellant's confession. The court also considered whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury regarding the committal of the appellant for trial. The court examined the competing principles surrounding the admissibility of confessions and the role of the trial judge in questioning the voluntariness and credit of such confessions. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in his handling of the voir dire and that the statements were properly admitted. The court further found that the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning the committal of the appellant for trial was correct and did not constitute a misdirection.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the admissibility of the appellant's statements or in the direction given to the jury concerning the committal of the appellant for trial. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision emphasized the importance of the trial judge's role in ensuring that confessions are voluntary and that the jury is correctly directed on matters of procedure and evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

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 Semyraha [2000] QCA 303
PARTIES:	R v SEMYRAHA, Adrian James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 373 of 1999 SC No 552 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2000
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Mullins J Joint reasons for judgment of Davies JA and Mullins J; separate reasons of McPherson JA concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – DETERMINATION OF ADMISSIBILITY – VOIR DIRE PROCEEDINGS – appellant convicted of murder – prosecution relied upon recorded police interview where certain confessional statements were made –challenge to the admissibility and the voluntariness of the evidence on a voir dire – appellant alleged that the confessional statements were induced by the impropriety of police conduct – where appellant confessed in more inculpatory terms than allegedly told by police – where the learned trial judge questioned and permitted cross-examination of the appellant with respect to matters tending to establish the truth of the confession – consideration of the competing principles as to when such questioning in respect to the voluntariness of a confession and the appellant's credit is permitted – whether such questioning should be permitted – whether the learned trial judge erred by wrongly taking into account the matters raised on the voir dire CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL BY JUSTICE OR CORONER – POWERS AND DUTIES OF MAGISTRATE OR CORONER – DECISION TO COMMIT OR DISCHARGE CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the evidence of the co-accused's father obtained at committal proceedings was tendered to the jury at trial – where reference was made in the summing up to the purpose and role of committal proceedings and prosecuting authorities – whether the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury concerning the committal of the appellant for trial Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15(1) Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, considered De Clercq v The Queen (1968) 70 DLR (2d) 530, considered Frijaf v The Queen [1982] WAR 128, considered MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, considered R v Gray [1964] QdR 373, considered R v Post and Georgee [1982] QdR 495, not followed R v Toner [1966] QWN 44, not followed Wong Kam-Ming v The Queen [1980] AC 247, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M J Burns for appellant (pro bono) M J Byrne QC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	No representation for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent