Catchwords

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - where the appellant was convicted of wilful damage and threatening violence at night for firing gun shots into Department of Transport buildings and a police station - where the prosecution's case rested almost solely on confessions made by the appellant to a doctor during a consultation - where the appellant sought an assurance of confidentiality from the doctor prior to making the confessions - where the doctor contacted the police after the consultation - where the admission of the confessional evidence by the doctor was objected to at trial - where the appellant relied on s 10 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld) claiming that the doctor was "a person in authority" - where the appellant also relied on the unfairness discretion to exclude the confessional evidence - whether the learned trial judge erred in not excluding the confessional evidence

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION - JUDGE'S SUMMING UP - OTHER MATTERS - where the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge failed to appropriately explain the defence case to the jury - where the appellant's mother gave evidence at trial that her son had a habit of claiming responsibility for criminal acts which he did not commit - where this was not summarised by the learned trial judge in summing up to the jury - where the learned trial judge failed to explain the consequences of the jury believing the appellant's mother's evidence - whether the learned trial judge's non-direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE - VERDICT AGAINST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL - where the verdict of the jury depended on the acceptance by the jury of the reliability of the confessional statements made by the appellant - whether it would be unsafe to allow a verdict of guilty on the evidence