The Queen v Stanley Stanley Jnr - [2015] QSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Stanley Stanley Jnr [2015] QSC 327

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(Respondent)

V

STANLEY STANLEY JNR

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

Ex Tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2015

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

y 9 am on Monday 16 November 2015 Detective Sergeant Scott Ingram make disclosure:B1.

of all records of conviction of the witnesses that the prosecution intends to call and of the deceased person Allan Robert Mitchell;a)

of the QP 9 relating to Mr Mitchell and the matter that came before the District Court;b)

of the QP9 in relation to the offence which came before the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on the 30^th of June 2005.c)

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where the applicant applies for full disclosure of the criminal histories of the deceased man and of the prosecution witnesses – where the prosecution has not fully disclosed the criminal history of the deceased man – where the convictions that have not been disclosed have become “spent offences” that is, outside the rehabilitation period, within the meaning of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 – whether disclosure of convictions outside the rehabilitation period is unlawful or against the public interest

Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 590AB

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), s 3, s 4(1)

R v Brown(Winston) [1998] AC 367
R v Keane [1994] 2 All ER 478
R v Lipton (2011) 82 NSWLR 123

COUNSEL:

J Godbolt for the Applicant

J Phillips for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

McMeekin J:

Explanatory Addendum

The following is an ex tempore decision given on the eve of trial of Mr Stanley Stanley Jnr. Contrary to the usual practise concerning ex tempore decisions it is published as counsel advised that there is no decision yet on the matter and it may be of interest to the profession. The transcript of the decision has been amended where necessary to make the decision comprehensible for the purposes of publication.

The Decision

This is an application brought by Mr Stanley Stanley Junior. Mr Stanley has been charged with murder. The indictment reads “that on the 15^th day of May 2013 at Rockhampton in the State of Queensland, [he] murdered Allan Robert Mitchell”. The application concerns the disclosure obligations of the prosecutor. The trial is to commence on Monday, today being the Friday prior.

The application concerns the disclosure of the criminal histories of the deceased man and of the prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution have disclosed a history of the deceased which is clearly a partial criminal history. So much is evident because the history refers to a suspended sentence and the judge ordering that the deceased man, Mr Mitchell, serve that suspended sentence, but the charge the subject of the suspended sentence is not revealed. Indeed, the defence have…

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 The Queen v Stanley Stanley Jnr 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: [2015] QSC 327
Decision Date: 13 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen v Stanley Stanley Jnr, the applicant sought full disclosure of the criminal histories of both the deceased man, Allan Robert Mitchell, and of the prosecution witnesses. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that the prosecution had failed to fully disclose the criminal history of the deceased man, specifically the convictions that had become spent offences, as defined by the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986. The central legal issue was whether the disclosure of convictions that were outside the rehabilitation period was unlawful or against the public interest.

The court found that the prosecution's failure to disclose the criminal histories of the deceased and the witnesses was a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial. The court noted that the relevance of the criminal histories was not in question, and that the issue was solely one of disclosure. The court emphasised that the disclosure of criminal histories was essential to the applicant's right to challenge the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the deceased, and to the overall fairness of the trial. The court held that the disclosure of convictions outside the rehabilitation period was not unlawful or against the public interest, and that such convictions should be disclosed as part of the prosecution's disclosure obligations.

The court ordered that by 9 am on Monday 16 November 2015, Detective Sergeant Scott Ingram make full disclosure of all records of conviction of the witnesses that the prosecution intended to call and of the deceased person Allan Robert Mitchell. The court also ordered that the prosecution disclose QP 9s relating to Mr Mitchell and the matters that came before the District Court and the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on the 30th of June 2005. The orders were made to ensure that the applicant had access to all relevant information necessary to prepare a fair and effective defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

y 9 am on Monday 16 November 2015 Detective Sergeant Scott Ingram make disclosure:B1.

of all records of conviction of the witnesses that the prosecution intends to call and of the deceased person Allan Robert Mitchell;a)

of the QP 9 relating to Mr Mitchell and the matter that came before the District Court;b)

of the QP9 in relation to the offence which came before the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on the 30th of June 2005.c)

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:	The Queen v Stanley Stanley Jnr [2015] QSC 327
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (Respondent) V STANLEY STANLEY JNR (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	Ex Tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	13 November 2015
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	y 9 am on Monday 16 November 2015 Detective Sergeant Scott Ingram make disclosure:B1. of all records of conviction of the witnesses that the prosecution intends to call and of the deceased person Allan Robert Mitchell;a) of the QP 9 relating to Mr Mitchell and the matter that came before the District Court;b) of the QP9 in relation to the offence which came before the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on the 30^th of June 2005.c)
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where the applicant applies for full disclosure of the criminal histories of the deceased man and of the prosecution witnesses – where the prosecution has not fully disclosed the criminal history of the deceased man – where the convictions that have not been disclosed have become “spent offences” that is, outside the rehabilitation period, within the meaning of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 – whether disclosure of convictions outside the rehabilitation period is unlawful or against the public interest Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 590AB Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), s 3, s 4(1) R v Brown(Winston) [1998] AC 367 R v Keane [1994] 2 All ER 478 R v Lipton (2011) 82 NSWLR 123
COUNSEL:	J Godbolt for the Applicant J Phillips for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent