R v Struber; R v Wilson-Struber

The respondents, Struber and Wilson-Struber, were convicted of the murder of Daniel Bidner, and they appealed against their convictions. The appeal related to two main issues: whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the trial judge should have allowed the appellants to adduce further evidence. The respondents were alleged to have murdered Bidner on 9 July 2012, while he was prospecting for gold on the respondents' property in the Palmer River area in Far North Queensland. The Crown case was that one of the respondents shot or otherwise killed Bidner, and that the other respondent assisted in the killing, disposing of Bidner’s body and possessions. Two witnesses identified the respondents as the perpetrators, and the jury rejected the respondents’ exculpatory accounts. The respondents argued that the verdict was unreasonable because there was no direct evidence of their presence at the scene of the murder, and there were other possible suspects. The respondents also sought to adduce further evidence, including an allegation that a witness had seen a man with a body in the back of his ute. The Court of Appeal held that the jury was entitled to reject the respondents’ exculpatory accounts, and that there was no evidence that anyone other than the respondents was present at the time of the murder. The Court held that the respondents could not raise hypotheses consistent with innocence on appeal that were excluded by the evidence of Struber at trial. The Court also held that the trial judge was correct to refuse leave to adduce further evidence, as it was positively inconsistent with the sworn evidence given by Struber and the case run by him at trial. The appeal against conviction was dismissed in both cases.

This case involved an appeal against convictions for murder, where the appellants argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that they should have been allowed to adduce further evidence. The Court of Appeal found that the jury was entitled to reject the appellants’ exculpatory accounts, and that there was no evidence that anyone other than the appellants was present at the time of the murder. The Court also found that the trial judge was correct to refuse leave to adduce further evidence, as it was inconsistent with the sworn evidence given by Struber at trial. The appeal against conviction was dismissed in both cases. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence is properly adduced and considered at trial, and that appeals against conviction are carefully considered by the Court of Appeal.