Legal Research
Cases
Earl Jones v The Queen

Earl Jones v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 160 17 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0145

EARL JONES	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and KYROU JJA and KIDD AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	16 September 2019 and 3 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 160
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Jones (Unreported, 21 February 2018, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Hollingworth (Conviction))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Stabbing – Whether the murder conviction is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – Consideration of intention to cause really serious injury where knife wounds to thigh – Whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice as a result of the admission of CCTV footage – Failure of counsel to object to admission of evidence – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
16 September 2019
For the Applicant	Mr P Chadwick QC	Ann Valos Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Mr B Kissane QC with Ms A Ellis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
3 June 2020
For the Applicant	Mr P Smallwood	Slades & Parsons
For the Respondent	Ms A Ellis	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KYROU JA
KIDD AJA:

On 21 February 2018, the applicant was convicted by a jury of one charge of murder. By their verdict, the jury rejected the lesser alternative charge of manslaughter. On 29 June 2018, the applicant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years for that offence of murder.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his murder conviction.

Procedural history

This application was first listed before this Court for hearing on 16 September 2019. At that time, the applicant was represented by senior counsel, who had prepared the written case of 25 July 2018. At that time, the applicant pursued a single ground of appeal, namely, that the murder conviction was not reasonable or not supported by the evidence. During this hearing, the applicant asked to speak to the Court directly. The applicant raised further matters with the Court that indicated that he may have wished to pursue other grounds of appeal.

As such, the Court adjourned the hearing to allow the applicant to obtain further legal advice and gave him leave to file a supplementary written case. The applicant having engaged new counsel, filed a supplementary written case on 17 January 2020. This supplementary written case put forward a second ground of appeal, namely, that the admission of CCTV evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The application was then listed before the same Bench for hearing on 3 June 2020. Different counsel appeared for the applicant at this hearing.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant and the victim, Stephen Lowry, had known each other for several months, being acquainted because they were both living in boarding houses in St Kilda.

On 1 August 2016, the applicant attended the Balaclava…

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 Earl Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Earl Jones v The Queen [2020] VSCA 160
Case: [2020] VSCA 160
Decision Date: 17 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Earl Jones, the appellant, and The Queen, the respondent, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the validity of an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant was convicted of murdering a man by stabbing him in the thigh with a knife. The central issue before the Court was whether the murder conviction was unreasonable or could not be supported in light of the evidence presented at trial. The Court also needed to consider the intention to cause really serious injury in the context of the knife wounds to the thigh. Additionally, the Court examined whether there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice due to the admission of CCTV footage and the failure of the appellant’s counsel to object to its admission.

The Court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented, including the nature of the injuries inflicted and the circumstances surrounding the stabbing. The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to cause really serious harm, despite the location of the stab wounds. The Court found that the failure of the appellant's counsel to object to the CCTV footage did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasised that the footage did not significantly impact the overall assessment of the evidence and the appellant's culpability.

In light of the reasoning above, the Court found that the murder conviction was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence. The Court also concluded that there had not been a substantial miscarriage of justice due to the admission of the CCTV footage. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

Orders