CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Post-offence conduct – Lies, concealment of body – Whether applicant’s explanation raised reasonable doubt – Verdict not unsafe and unsatisfactory – Application refused.
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder – Conviction after trial – Sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years – Whether open to conclude that killing premeditated – Whether applicant suffering from mental illness – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Application refused.
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Forfeiture – ‘Tainted property’ – Whether property ‘used in connection with the commission of the offence’ or merely the location – Review of interstate authorities – Whether property enlisted to applicant’s purpose – Forfeiture order made by consent – Whether open to challenge on appeal – Appeal allowed – Forfeiture order varied – Confiscation Act 1997 ss 32, 33.
WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘Use’, ‘used in connection with the commission of the offence’.
---
Appearances:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr T F Danos
Jeremy Harper & Associates
For the Crown
Mr C B Boyce
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
MAXWELL P
REDLICH JA KYROU AJA:
Following a trial in the Supreme Court, the applicant was found guilty of murdering his de facto partner, Xiao Ling Liang. He seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on two grounds both of which amount in substance to a complaint that the verdict of guilty to murder was not open to the jury.
He also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years, and seeks an order setting aside part of a forfeiture order that was made following his conviction. For reasons which follow, we would refuse the application for leave to appeal against conviction. We would refuse leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Justice Osborn on 22 June 2009. Assuming leave is necessary,[1] we would grant leave to appeal against part of the forfeiture order made by Justice Osborn on 3 April 2009 and would allow the appeal and vary that order by deleting paragraph 1 of the schedule to that order.
It was not in issue at the trial that the applicant had caused Ms Liang’s death. The sole issue was whether he had the requisite intent to constitute murder or whether her death was accidental. Counsel for the applicant thus suggested in his closing address to the jury that they return a verdict of guilty to manslaughter.
The circumstances of the offence
The applicant ran a landscaping business with work…
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 Chalmers v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Chalmers v The Queen [2011] VSCA 436
Case
[2011] VSCA 436
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Chalmers v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia and involved the applicant's conviction and sentence for the murder of a person, as well as the forfeiture of certain property. The applicant contested the sufficiency of the evidence leading to his conviction, the severity of his sentence, and the appropriateness of the forfeiture order. The High Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the applicant, whether his post-offence conduct, including lying and concealing the body, was indicative of guilt, and if his explanation raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt. The court also assessed the sentence's proportionality and the conditions under which the property forfeiture was ordered.
The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's explanation for the circumstances surrounding the murder raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt, thus rendering the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances and whether the forfeiture of the property was justified under the Confiscation Act 1997. The court also considered whether the killing was premeditated and if the applicant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence.
The High Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the applicant's explanation did not sufficiently raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt. The verdict was deemed safe and satisfactory. The court also determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offence. However, regarding the forfeiture, the court found that the property was not used in connection with the commission of the offence but was merely the location where it occurred. The court held that the forfeiture order was not appropriately challenged on appeal and varied the forfeiture order under the Confiscation Act 1997.
The High Court allowed the appeal in part concerning the forfeiture of property, varied the forfeiture order, and upheld the conviction and sentence. The court found that the applicant's explanation did not raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. However, it was determined that the property was not used in connection with the commission of the offence, leading to a variation of the forfeiture order. The conviction and sentence remained unchanged, but the forfeiture order was adjusted to reflect the correct legal criteria.