Baker v The Queen - [2010] VSCA 226

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2008 843

KHALID BAKER	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, BUCHANAN and BONGIORNO JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	18 January 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	9 September 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 226
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Baker (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Whelan J, 26 May 2008 (date of conviction))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Fight resulted in victim falling through window to his death – Two accused – Whether action of either caused death – Intention to cause really serious injury – Need for causal act to coincide with criminal intent – Conflicting eyewitness accounts – Whether open to jury to prefer one account over another – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Galbally Rolfe
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell	Mr C Hyland, Office of Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

In the early hours of the morning on 27 November 2005, a young man fell to his death from the first floor of a converted warehouse. After a trial before a Supreme Court jury, the applicant (‘Baker’) was found guilty of his murder. His co-accused (‘LM’) was acquitted. Baker was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.

He now seeks leave to appeal against the conviction on the ground that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. This is what is conventionally referred to as the ‘unsafe and unsatisfactory’ ground. Before considering the ground, it is necessary first to summarise the events.

Factual background

On the evening in question, a party was being held at the warehouse. It was both a birthday celebration and a housewarming. Somewhere between 100 and 200 people attended. A number of witnesses at the trial gave evidence that there was a good atmosphere at the party. The party theme was ‘roller-disco’. There were people in costume and there was music and dancing.

Amongst those attending were Baker, LM, and the victim (‘S’). Also in attendance was Ali Faulkner (‘Faulkner’), a friend of Baker’s. At about 3.00 am, there was an outbreak of unprovoked violence in the main party area. Baker and Faulkner attacked party-goers at random and inflicted injuries. Faulkner subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of offences arising from this incident, and was sentenced to five years and nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.

Soon afterwards, Baker, Faulkner and LM went out of the party through a door into the stairwell. Outside the door there was a landing, on one side of which were nearly full-length windows. The death of S occurred after he crashed through the glass of the window and fell 5.4 metres to the footpath below. The question for the jury was whether the Crown had established that it was the actions of Baker and/or LM which…

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.

Continue reading Baker v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Baker v The Queen [2010] VSCA 226
Case: [2010] VSCA 226
Decision Date: 9 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Baker v The Queen, the appeal concerns a conviction for murder arising from a fight that resulted in the death of the victim, who fell through a window. The respondent, the Crown, had prosecuted two individuals for the offence, and the appellant, Baker, now challenges the conviction. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the actions of either of the accused caused the death, and if the Crown had proven that the accused intended to cause really serious injury. Another issue was whether the causal act had to coincide with the criminal intent. The court also had to consider the conflicting eyewitness accounts and whether it was open to the jury to prefer one account over another. Additionally, the court examined whether the verdict was so unsafe and unsatisfactory that the conviction should be quashed.

The court found that the jury had been correctly directed and had properly considered the conflicting evidence. It was open to the jury to prefer the version of events that supported the Crown's case, and the jury's acceptance of that version was not unreasonable. The court held that the jury was entitled to find that the appellant's actions, in conjunction with those of the co-accused, caused the victim's death. The court also held that the requisite intent for murder was present, as the Crown had proven that the appellant intended to cause really serious injury. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders