Martin v The Queen

(2010) 28 VR 579; [2010] VSCA 153

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Duress
4. › Elements of the defence
5. › Whether accused required to do the act charged under threat of death or grievous bodily harm
6. › Whether threat present, continuing, imminent and impending
7. › Whether accused had no means of preventing execution of threat
8. › Evidentiary threshold for leaving defence to jury
9. › Whether judge erred in withdrawing defence from jury
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Cross-examination of accused
4. › Whether impermissible to cross-examine accused to suggest other witnesses lied
5. › Qualification where defence has positively asserted witness was lying
6. › Whether impermissible cross-examination occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Jury irregularities
4. › Internet research by jurors
5. › Material about meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt' found in jury room after verdict
6. › Whether search in defiance of judge's directions
7. › Whether irregularity affected verdict
8. › Whether new trial required
9. › Juries Act 2000 (Vic), s 78A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Reopening Crown case
4. › Whether judge erred in permitting recall of witness to contradict accused's evidence
5. › Rule in Browne v Dunn

Quick Take

The test for jury irregularities discovered after verdict — whether the court can be satisfied the irregularity has not affected the verdict — applies to juror internet research about the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and such research does not require a new trial where the downloaded material does not impose a less rigorous burden on the Crown and the accused had no answer to the Crown case. The defence of duress requires evidence that the accused was required to do the particular act charged under a threat of death or grievous bodily harm; general fear of a co-accused, without a specific threat directed to the particular offence, is insufficient. The question whether s 78A(1) of the Juries Act 2000 prohibits jurors from researching the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in legal dictionaries or texts was left open.