Page:HCF v The Queen.pdf/14

Gageler CJ Gleeson J Jagot J

18 September 1997 and 20 September 1999), in respect of which the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

The day after the entry of the jury verdicts, a juror delivered a note to the Acting Deputy Registrar of the District Court of Queensland, concerning the jury's deliberations. As will be explained, this note caused the trial judge to authorise the Sheriff of Queensland to conduct an investigation under s 70(7) of the Jury Act. On the following day, the trial judge sentenced the appellant on the six verdicts of guilty (for count 1 to nine years' imprisonment; for count 3 to 12 months' imprisonment; for counts 4 and 5 to two and a half years' imprisonment; for count 14 to six months' imprisonment; and for count 17 to four years' imprisonment, with all sentences to be served concurrently).

The appellant appealed against the convictions and sought leave to appeal against the sentence. By the time of the hearing before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Sheriff had provided a report of her investigation. The appellant's appeal against his convictions alleged a miscarriage of justice on two grounds: first, by reason of a juror conducting internet investigations and the other jurors not reporting this conduct to the trial judge; and, second, by reason of the same juror not disclosing a stated bias to the trial judge. The appellant's appeal against sentence was on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the convictions and refused leave to appeal against the sentence.

The appellant was granted special leave to appeal on three grounds. In the event, during the hearing, the appellant pursued a single ground of appeal, namely, that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal against his convictions on the basis that there had been no miscarriage of justice by reason of a juror conducting internet investigations and the collective misconduct of the other jurors in not reporting that to the trial judge. The appellant submitted that those circumstances gave rise to a non-speculative inference about the jurors' failure to obey judicial directions. The respondent maintained that if, contrary to its case, there was a miscarriage of justice, the proviso should be applied. As explained, given that the applicable test is the reasonable apprehension test, there is no scope for application of the proviso in this case.

The trial

The trial started on Tuesday, 13 October 2020. After the jury was empanelled, the trial judge made what he described as "introductory remarks" to the jury. The trial judge's introductory remarks included that the jurors must only discuss the case amongst themselves and not with anyone else. The trial judge continued, saying: