Legal Research
Cases
Charlton v The King

Charlton v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 46 25 March 2025

Appeal

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0248

PAUL ROSS CHARLTON	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, WALKER and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 46
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Charlton (No 2) [2023] VSC 707 (Sentence)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Whether direction that an ‘unrealistic possibility’ is not a reasonable doubt diminished the criminal standard of criminal proof – Beyond reasonable doubt explained in terms prescribed by legislature – Whether verdict of the jury unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – Defence case that an intruder killed the deceased – Open to the jury to reject hypothesis of intruder – Leave to appeal refused.

Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 63, 64.

Farshchi v The King [2024] VSCA 235; R v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr PJ Smallwood and Ms A Dixon
Respondent:		Ms E Ruddle KC with Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Galbally Parker Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

•

PRIEST JA

WALKER JA

BOYCE JA:

Introduction

At 11.19 pm, on Saturday, 21 April 2007, Paul Charlton, the applicant, then aged 53 years, called the ‘000’ emergency services number and reported that he had found his domestic partner, Joanne Howell, then aged 52 years, lying at the bottom of the stairs in their unit in Poath Road, Hughesdale, unresponsive and cold to the touch.
When ambulance paramedics arrived at the premises at 11.29 pm, they pulled back Ms Howell’s top to apply defibrillation pads so as to establish if there was any cardiac electrical activity, but there was none. Ambulance personnel decided that any attempt at resuscitation would be futile — Ms Howell was obviously deceased — so no attempt was made.
Dr Michael Burke, a forensic pathologist with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, attended the scene at about 2.00 am the following morning, 22 April 2007, and inspected Ms Howell’s body. He saw that a large amount of blood had soaked into the posterior aspect of her hair; she had two black eyes; and florid petechial haemorrhages around the upper eyelids. Later that morning, at 7.45 am, Dr Burke performed an autopsy on Ms Howell’s body. He observed that she had two black eyes, secondary to an impact to the back of her head which had caused contrecoup contusions to the brain. There was an eight centimetre ‘horseshoe’ fracture to the back of the skull, reflecting the fact that significant force had been applied to the back of the head. The impact to Ms Howell’s head caused haemorrhages to various parts of the brain. There were also ligature marks to the neck, indicating that Ms Howell had been strangled. The fact that there was ‘very minor’ bruising associated with the ligature marks suggested that Ms Howell was not struggling when strangled. Dr Burke expressed…

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 Charlton v The King

Details

AGLC: Charlton v The King [2025] VSCA 46
Case: [2025] VSCA 46
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Charlton v The King, the appellant was convicted of murder and appealed against that decision. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether certain directions given to the jury by the trial judge affected the outcome of the trial. The appellant contended that the trial judge's explanation of the criminal standard of proof diminished the standard by stating that a reasonable doubt could not be based on an 'unrealistic possibility.' This direction, the appellant argued, misdirected the jury by lowering the standard of proof required for a conviction.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions were in accordance with the Jury Directions Act 2015, which requires that the jury be directed on the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the terms prescribed by the legislature. The court examined whether the trial judge's explanation of this standard, including the reference to an 'unrealistic possibility,' could be seen as diminishing the standard of proof. The court also assessed whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported given the evidence presented.

The court concluded that the directions given to the jury were consistent with the requirements of the Jury Directions Act 2015. The court found that the trial judge's explanation did not lower the standard of proof required for a conviction. Additionally, the court held that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's defence that an intruder was responsible for the killing. The court affirmed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore the conviction was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a higher court was refused.

Orders