R v Sparks - [2005] QCA 435

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sparks [2005] QCA 435

PARTIES:

R
v
SPARKS, Adam Shay
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2005
DC No 1218 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Roma

DELIVERED ON:

25 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against convictions dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the jury delivered five guilty verdicts on counts one to five – where the trial judge “short-circuited” the process of taking the remaining verdicts and asked the jury whether they had arrived at identical verdicts of guilty with respect to the other seven counts – where this procedure was a serious departure from accepted practice – whether there had been a miscarriage of justice so that at least some of the convictions cannot be allowed to stand

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 648
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 51

Ellis v Deheer [1922] 2 KB 113, considered
Milgate v The Queen (1964) 38 ALJR 162, considered
Nanan v The State (1986) 3 All ER 248; [1986] AC 860, considered
R v Challinger [1989] 2 Qd R 352, cited
R v Conway [2005] QCA 194; CA No 121 of 2005, 10 June 2005, considered
R v K (2003) 144 A Crim R 468; (2003) 59 NSWLR 431, cited
R v Mirza; R v Connor [2004] 1 AC 1118, cited
R v Wooller (1817) 2 Stark 111; 171 ER 589, considered

COUNSEL:

D S F Lynas Torr, with R Towns-Wilson, for the appellant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Williams JA's reasons for dismissing the appeal against conviction.

During the summing up the judge told the jury that their verdict on any count must be unanimous; there was a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; the Crown must satisfy the jury of Sparks' guilt beyond reasonable doubt on each count; they were entitled to return different verdicts on different counts; they could return verdicts of either guilty or not guilty or they may be unable to reach a verdict on any count. It seems that the jury indicated to the judge through the bailiff that they had reached verdicts on all counts before the court reconstituted and the associate asked "Members of the jury, are you agreed upon your verdicts?". Although no response is recorded in the transcript, it can be inferred that the jury members communicated assent, at the very least by silence. After delivering five guilty verdicts on counts…

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 Sparks

Details

AGLC: R v Sparks [2005] QCA 435
Case: [2005] QCA 435
Decision Date: 25 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Sparks, the respondent, a convicted individual, appealed against his convictions before the High Court of Australia. The appeal centred on whether a serious procedural irregularity during the trial led to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of some convictions. The trial judge had bypassed the usual process for taking verdicts on remaining counts by inquiring if the jury had reached identical verdicts on all counts. This action was deemed a significant deviation from standard procedure.

The legal issue before the court was whether the irregularity amounted to a miscarriage of justice that necessitated the setting aside of at least some of the respondent's convictions. The court considered whether the departure from accepted practice was so significant that it impacted the fairness of the trial or the reliability of the verdicts. The court evaluated the impact of the irregularity on the overall integrity of the trial and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The court concluded that, while the trial judge's approach was indeed a serious procedural error, it did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The irregularity did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial or the reliability of the verdicts. Consequently, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against convictions 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 Sparks [2005] QCA 435
PARTIES:	R v SPARKS, Adam Shay (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 106 of 2005 DC No 1218 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Roma
DELIVERED ON:	25 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against convictions dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the jury delivered five guilty verdicts on counts one to five – where the trial judge “short-circuited” the process of taking the remaining verdicts and asked the jury whether they had arrived at identical verdicts of guilty with respect to the other seven counts – where this procedure was a serious departure from accepted practice – whether there had been a miscarriage of justice so that at least some of the convictions cannot be allowed to stand Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 648 Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 51 Ellis v Deheer [1922] 2 KB 113, considered Milgate v The Queen (1964) 38 ALJR 162, considered Nanan v The State (1986) 3 All ER 248; [1986] AC 860, considered R v Challinger [1989] 2 Qd R 352, cited R v Conway [2005] QCA 194; CA No 121 of 2005, 10 June 2005, considered R v K (2003) 144 A Crim R 468; (2003) 59 NSWLR 431, cited R v Mirza; R v Connor [2004] 1 AC 1118, cited R v Wooller (1817) 2 Stark 111; 171 ER 589, considered
COUNSEL:	D S F Lynas Torr, with R Towns-Wilson, for the appellant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent