Legal Research
Cases
Butler v The Queen

Butler v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 417 20 December 2011

Conviction

Murder

Appeal

Conviction for murder unsafe or unsatisfactory

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0956

LAWRENCE ALEXANDER BUTLER
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and ROSS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 417
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Butler [2009] VSC 630 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Murder – Post-offence conduct – Lies – Murderous intent – Whether evidence equally consistent with intention relevant to unlawful and dangerous manslaughter – Evidence not intractably neutral – Conviction for murder unsafe or unsatisfactory – Appeal allowed – Conviction quashed – Appellant remitted for trial on count of manslaughter.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr N Papas SC	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr P B Kidd SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

The facts in this case, and the issues raised on the appeal, are set out in the judgment of Ashley JA, which I have had the advantage of reading. I respectfully agree with his Honour that it was open to the jury to accept the evidence of the key Crown witness, Jodi Harris. I also agree that ground 1 must be rejected. Like his Honour, I consider that the evidence of the applicant’s post-offence conduct, including the alleged lies, was properly left to the jury.

I have, however, come to a different conclusion on ground 2. That ground should also be dismissed, in my opinion. I consider that it was open to the jury, on all of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had killed the victim (T) with the intent, at the least, of causing him very serious injury. I would therefore dismiss the appeal. My reasons are as follows.

Ground 2: no obstacle to conviction

Under this ground, the applicant contends that his conviction for murder is unsafe and unsatisfactory. This Court must therefore ask itself whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty.[1] The ‘unsafe and unsatisfactory’ ground will only be upheld if there was some aspect of the evidence which obliged – as distinct from entitled – the jury to come to a different conclusion.
[1]R v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644, 653–4.

In Libke v The Queen,[2] Hayne J (with whom Gleeson CJ and Heydon J agreed) said in relation to this ground:
[2](2007) 230 CLR 559, 596–7 [113] (citations omitted).

But the question for an appellate court is whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is to say whether the jury must, as distinct from might, have entertained a doubt about the appellant’s guilt. It is not sufficient to show that there was material which might have been taken by the jury to be sufficient to preclude satisfaction of guilt to…

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 Butler v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Butler v The Queen [2011] VSCA 417
Case: [2011] VSCA 417
Decision Date: 20 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Butler v The Queen came before the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Butler, appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The crux of the dispute was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction of murder, particularly in light of the appellant's post-offence conduct and the potential for alternative explanations for the crime.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was equally consistent with the intention to commit an unlawful and dangerous act resulting in death, and thus relevant to the charge of manslaughter rather than murder. The court also needed to determine whether the evidence was intractably neutral, and if it was not, whether the conviction for murder was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The court found that the evidence was not intractably neutral and that the appellant's post-offence conduct, including his lies, could be relevant to his intent at the time of the offence. Given that the evidence was not equally consistent with the intention necessary for a murder conviction, the court concluded that the conviction for murder was unsafe or unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction for murder was quashed, and the appellant was to be remitted for trial on a count of manslaughter.

Orders