R v Sheehy - [2002] QSC 470

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Sheehy [2002] QSC 470
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent) v DARREN LEE SHEEHY (applicant)
FILE NO:	Maryborough Indictment No 129 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2002
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Leave to reopen the pre-trial ruling made on 3 December 2001 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - pre-trial ruling under s 592A of the Criminal Code (Q) - jury unable to reach verdicts at trial and discharged - pre-trial ruling applies to adjourned trial
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - application to reopen pre-trial ruling under s 592A(3) of the Criminal Code (Q) - pre-trial ruling refused to exclude confessions and taped interviews on basis of involuntariness - evidence of confessions and interviews admitted at trial - additional evidence at the trial relevant to voluntariness of confessions and interviews - whether special reason to reopen pre-trial ruling - whether significant change of circumstances between pre-trial ruling and when reopening sought amounted to special reason - additional evidence made no significant change to substance of evidence at the hearing of pre-trial ruling - no special reason
Hooper (1999) 108 A Crim R 108 R v Nguyen [2002] 1 QdR 426 R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434 R v Walbank [1996] 1 QdR 78
Criminal Code, s 592A, s 594 Jury Act 1995 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
COUNSEL:	PE Smith for the applicant MJ Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aylward Game Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS J: The applicant is charged on indictment with two counts of murder. The applicant applied for a number of rulings pursuant to s 592A of the Criminal Code including a ruling to exclude a certain conversation and all records of interview conducted between the applicant and Detective Murray on 22 and 23 July 2000. That application was heard by Philippides J and, in respect of this conversation and these records, was refused on 3 December 2001.
An extensive hearing of evidence from Detective Murray and other police officers took place before Philippides J over three days in connection with the application. The applicant elected (which was described on the hearing of the application before me as a “tactical decision”) not to give or call evidence on the hearing for the pre- trial ruling.
The trial of these charges before Fryberg J with a jury took place in Maryborough commencing on 11 February 2002. The applicant pleaded not guilty to each charge. The evidence which Philippides J had refused to exclude was adduced. The applicant gave evidence at this trial. The jury was unable to reach verdicts and was discharged.
A trial of these charges (“the August trial”) has been listed before me to commence on 19 August 2002. The applicant seeks to revisit the pre-trial ruling to the extent that it applies to the following on the basis of the involuntariness of the confession and 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Sheehy and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QSC 470
Decision Date: 30 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Sheehy, the dispute involves a pre-trial ruling under section 592A of the Criminal Code, which was made on 3 December 2001. The case was before the court due to the jury's inability to reach verdicts at the trial, resulting in their discharge. The defendant, Sheehy, sought to reopen the pre-trial ruling to potentially influence the adjourned trial.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on the applicability of the pre-trial ruling to the adjourned trial. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the ruling, which was made prior to the jury's discharge, could still be enforced or if it was rendered moot by the jury's inability to reach a verdict. The central question was whether the ruling should be reopened and, if so, how it might affect the proceedings of the adjourned trial.

The court carefully examined the nature and purpose of the pre-trial ruling, concluding that it was intended to guide the trial process and ensure certain procedural safeguards. Given that the jury was discharged before reaching a verdict, the court found that the ruling remained valid and applicable to the adjourned trial. The court reasoned that the ruling was not dependent on the jury's ability to reach a verdict and, therefore, it continued to be relevant. Consequently, the application to reopen the pre-trial ruling was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to reopen the pre-trial ruling made on 3 December

2001 is refused.

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.