R v Stewart & Garcia

Case [2014] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stewart & Garcia [2014] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
STEWART, Cameron Andrew
(appellant/applicant)

R
v
GARCIA, Vladimir
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 92 of 2013
CA No 96 of 2013
SC No 296 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 92 of 2013:

1.    Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

In CA No 96 of 2013:

1.    Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant Stewart and the appellant Garcia were each found guilty after trial of two counts of murder – where the prosecution was unable to say whether the killer was Stewart, Garcia or an identified third person – where the prosecution relied on the party provisions in the Criminal Code to prove guilt – whether the verdicts of the jury were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE TRIALS AND ELECTION – where before the trial Stewart applied to be tried separately from Garcia – where Garcia had implicated Stewart in the offences in a police interview that was tendered at trial, but Stewart had not sought to blame Garcia for the offences – where Garcia’s interview was not admissible against Stewart, but Stewart argued it was too difficult for the jury to ignore – whether the pre-trial judge erred in ordering a joint trial because there was a real risk that the jury would use the evidence of the police interview impermissibly even if a trial judge gave proper directions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – where Garcia had implicated Stewart in the offences in a police interview – where that and other evidence was admissible against Garcia but not admissible against Stewart – where on virtually each occasion such evidence was adduced at trial the jury was told the evidence was not admissible against Stewart – whether the directions were sufficient to avert any risk that the jury would misuse the evidence admitted only in the case against Garcia adversely against Stewart

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant Stewart and the appellant Garcia were each found guilty after trial of two counts of murder – where each of Stewart and…

Continue reading R v Stewart & Garcia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stewart & Garcia [2014] QCA 0
Case
[2014] QCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Stewart and Garcia, were found guilty in the Supreme Court of two counts of murder each. The prosecution was unable to identify the actual killer, with the possibility that it was either Stewart, Garcia or a third person. The appellants appealed against their convictions and sentences. The court had to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and if the trial judge erred in ordering a joint trial.

The court considered the prosecution's reliance on the party provisions of the Criminal Code to prove guilt. It held that the verdicts were open to the jury and were not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence. The court also addressed the appellants' claims that the trial judge erred in ordering a joint trial and that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's direction, and the risk of the jury using the inadmissible evidence against Stewart was averted.

The court further addressed the appellants' claims that their sentences were manifestly excessive. The trial judge had considered the statutory minimum non-parole period of 20 years insufficient given the circumstances and increased it to 25 years. The court held that the increases in the non-parole periods did not make the sentences manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals against their convictions and refused their applications for leave to appeal against their sentences. The final orders were that the appeals against conviction were dismissed, and the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 92 of 2013:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

In CA No 96 of 2013:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.