Legal Research
Cases
Brooks v The Queen

Brooks v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 197 28 August 2012

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCR 2008 0591

MATTHEW WAYNE BROOKS	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WEINBERG, BONGIORNO JJA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	25 July 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28 August 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 197
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Brooks (Unreported, Supreme Court Of Victoria, Coghlan J, 20 November 2007 (Conviction))

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against conviction — Appellant convicted of murder of de facto partner — Post-offence conduct — Jury directions — Crown alleged that appellant had stabbed his partner with murderous intent —Appellant stated that deceased had stabbed herself in his presence — Crown asserted that appellant’s version of events was a lie — Whether trial judge erred in permitting the jury to use appellant’s claim that deceased had taken her own life as evidence of consciousness of guilt (if they found it to be a lie) — Trial judge limited jury’s use of lie to question of intent — Whether trial judge erred in failing to warn jury as to need for care in deciding whether lie evinced consciousness of guilt of murder as opposed to manslaughter — Lie to be considered in context of totality of evidence — Lie not intractably neutral as to murder or manslaughter — Appeal dismissed — R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26, applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S Holt	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor For Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA:

After a trial in the Supreme Court lasting some eight days, the appellant, Matthew Brooks, was convicted of the murder of his partner, Priscilla Chapple. He was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 13 years was fixed.

On 18 May 2012, Neave JA granted leave to appeal against conviction upon the following ground:

Ground 1 That the learned trial judge:
(a)erred in permitting the Crown to use the appellant’s alleged lie that the deceased committed suicide as evidence of consciousness of guilt; or
(b)erred in failing to warn the jury of the need for care in deciding whether this alleged lie was an implied admission to murder as opposed to manslaughter.

Her Honour refused leave to appeal on a second ground, which related to other post-offence conduct which the jury had been invited to consider as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Circumstances surrounding the offence

The appellant and the deceased had been in a de facto relationship for some time. They were both deeply troubled individuals. There was a history of conflict between them.

Some time between 4:15am and 5am on 1 September 2006, the deceased was fatally stabbed. At about 6:30am, the appellant, in a state of obvious intoxication, knocked on his neighbour’s front door. He appeared highly agitated. He said to his neighbour, inter alia: ‘I’ve killed my family’.

Shortly afterwards, the appellant telephoned the police. He told the officer with whom he spoke that…

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 Brooks v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Brooks v The Queen [2012] VSCA 197
Case: [2012] VSCA 197
Decision Date: 28 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brooks v The Queen, the appellant, Brooks, was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner. Brooks claimed that the deceased had stabbed herself in his presence, while the Crown asserted that this account was false and that Brooks had murdered the deceased. Brooks appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had erred in permitting the jury to use his claim that the deceased had taken her own life as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The appeal also argued that the trial judge failed to warn the jury of the need for care in determining whether the lie evidenced consciousness of guilt of murder as opposed to manslaughter.

The legal issues in the appeal centred on the admissibility and the effect of Brooks’ post-offence conduct, specifically his claim that the deceased had stabbed herself, as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The appeal questioned whether the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider this claim as evidence of consciousness of guilt if they found it to be a lie. Additionally, the appeal examined whether the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about the need for care in determining whether the lie evidenced consciousness of guilt of murder as opposed to manslaughter.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in permitting the jury to consider Brooks’ claim that the deceased had stabbed herself as evidence of consciousness of guilt, provided the jury was properly directed to consider this in the context of the totality of the evidence. The court found that the lie was not intractably neutral as to whether Brooks was guilty of murder or manslaughter, and therefore, the trial judge’s direction to the jury was appropriate. The court applied the principles from R v Ciantar, affirming that the lie should be considered within the context of all the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Brooks’ conviction was upheld.

The court made no orders as to the costs of the appeal.

Orders