R v Woods

[2001] QCA 474

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woods [2001] QCA 474

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODS, Mark William
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2000
DC No 3035 of 1997

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 September 2001

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Jones and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant convicted of armed robbery, deprivation of liberty and break and enter with intent – whether evidence sufficient to support verdict

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – FAIRNESS OF TRIAL – where appellant alleges failure of his solicitors to carry out instructions – whether miscarriage of justice – whether learned trial judge showed “prejudicial conduct” during trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPLICATION DEALT WITH ON MERITS – whether sentence imposed at trial manifestly excessive – party of sentence with co-accused – whether learned trial judge biased

R v Jones [2000] QCA 84; CA No 393 of 1999, 17 March 2000, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
SG Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons of Mullins J for dismissing this appeal against conviction and for refusing leave to appeal against sentence.

1. JONES J:  I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and with the orders proposed.

1. MULLINS J:  The appellant was convicted on 31 October 2000 of 1 count of armed robbery, 2 counts of deprivation of liberty and 1 count of break and enter with intent (“the robbery charges”) arising out of the armed robbery of the Junction Hotel at Annerley on 30 April 1990 in which the sum of $34,692.55 was stolen.  The primary grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal are that the decision of the jury was unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, and was unsafe and unsatisfactory.  Another ground of appeal put in issue the fairness of the trial due to the conduct of the learned trial judge.  The appellant’s written submissions sought to impugn the fairness of the trial due to the alleged failure of the appellant’s solicitor to carry out the appellant’s instructions. 

1. The appellant was unrepresented in connection with all aspects of this appeal. 

1. The appellant delivered a number of documents to the court in support of his appeal including a document which was described as being his affidavit…