R v HCF

[2021] QCA 189

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Jury irregularity
5. › Juror bias and independent research
6. › Whether juror's pro-defence bias and internet research constituted serious departure from essential requirements of law
7. › Whether fair-minded observer would apprehend jury did not discharge task impartially
8. › Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 70(7)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Sentence manifestly excessive
5. › Maintaining sexual relationship with child
6. › Whether nine years' imprisonment manifestly excessive for maintaining offence over decade-long period

Quick Take

Where a Sheriff's investigation under s 70(7) of the Jury Act reveals that juror misconduct was pro-defence and verdicts were genuinely unanimous, the Webb v The Queen test will not be satisfied in challenges to conviction based on juror misconduct.

Case Details

Citation[2021] QCA 189

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.

1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by3

2023HCF v The QueenHCA 35
2023R v LBCQCA 178
2022R v BDQQCA 71

Relies on13

2020R v Peter; R v Anau; R v Ingui; R v BanuQCA 228
2016NH v Director of Public Prosecutions; Jakaj v Director of Public Prosecutions; Zefi v Director of Public Prosecutions; Stakaj v Director of Public ProsecutionsHCA 33
2016R v CBQQCA 125
2014Smith v Western AustraliaHCA 3
and 9 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in