Christine Ann Lyons v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0197

CHRISTINE ANN LYONS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2018 0198

RONALD LYONS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	McLEISH, EMERTON and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 127
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VSC 488 (Kaye JA)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Attempted murder – Joint criminal enterprise – Victim mother of four young children – First applicant unable to bear children – Motive to kill victim to enable first applicant to assume care of victim’s children – Attempt by first and second applicants to kill victim by drugging with sedatives – Attempt unsuccessful – Victim violently bashed to death by co-offender on instruction by first applicant – Second applicant assisted co-offender to dispose of deceased’s body – First applicant convicted of murder and attempted murder – Second applicant acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder and assist offender (murder) – Whether verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory – Co-offender undertook to give evidence against first and second applicants – Whether co-offender’s evidence capable of being accepted – Path to conviction open on totality of evidence – Whether first applicant’s conviction inconsistent with second applicant’s acquittal on charge of murder – Verdicts not inconsistent – Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant Ms Lyons	Mr C T Carr with	Stary Norton Halphen
Mr R J de Kretser
For the Applicant Mr Lyons	Mr P J Smallwood	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr C B Boyce QC with Ms E H Ruddle	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

McLEISH JA
EMERTON JA

WEINBERG JA:

In the early hours of 23 January 2016, Samantha Kelly, a mother of four young children, was bludgeoned to death in Kangaroo Flat, in a bungalow in which she resided. She was struck approximately seven times to the head with a hammer. The blows were inflicted by a man named Peter Arthur, who later confessed to the murder. He then led police to a dry creek bed near Maryborough, where he had taken the body and partially buried it.

The circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, Ms Kelly’s murder can only be described as utterly bizarre. The motive for the crime was said to be a desperate desire on the part of the first applicant, Christine Lyons, to take over the care of Ms Kelly’s children, Christine being unable to have any children of her own. She, along with Peter, and a cousin of hers by former marriage (who is the second applicant), Ronald Lyons, were alleged to have planned the murder so as to be rid of Ms Kelly, and thereby enable Christine to assume the role of mother to Ms Kelly’s children.

To make matters even more extraordinary, the bashing to death of Ms Kelly occurred only after the three plotters had…

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 Christine Ann Lyons v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Christine Ann Lyons v The Queen [2020] VSCA 127
Case: [2020] VSCA 127
Decision Date: 20 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Christine Ann Lyons, who was convicted of murder and attempted murder, against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Lyons was convicted for her involvement in a joint criminal enterprise to kill a mother of four young children, a plan motivated by Lyons' desire to assume care of the children. Lyons, along with a co-accused, attempted to kill the victim by drugging her with sedatives, but this attempt failed. Instead, the victim was violently bashed to death by a co-offender, on Lyons' instruction. The co-offender, who had undertaken to give evidence against Lyons and the co-accused, was assisted by the latter in disposing of the victim's body. The co-accused was acquitted of murder but was convicted of attempted murder and assisting an offender (murder). Lyons appealed on the grounds that her convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that her acquittal of the co-accused on the charge of murder rendered her conviction inconsistent.

The appeal hinged on the sufficiency and acceptability of the co-offender's evidence and whether it was possible to convict Lyons based on the totality of the evidence. The court had to determine if the verdicts were inconsistent, given that the co-accused was acquitted of murder while Lyons was convicted of the same offence. The court also had to assess if the path to conviction was open for Lyons based on the totality of the evidence, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused on the murder charge rendered Lyons' conviction inconsistent.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the co-offender's evidence was capable of being accepted and was not inherently improbable. The totality of the evidence, including the co-offender's testimony, provided a path to conviction for Lyons. The court further found that there was no inconsistency in the verdicts, as the co-accused's acquittal on the murder charge did not necessarily mean that Lyons could not be convicted. The court concluded that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory and that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, the applications for leave to appeal against the conviction were refused.

Orders