Jeffrey v The Queen - [1991] TASSC 114

114/1991
List "A"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Jeffrey v R [1991] TASSC 114; [1991] Tas R 336; A114/1991

PARTIES:  JEFFREY, Aaron Leigh
  v
  R

FILE NO/S:  CCA 26/1991
DELIVERED ON:  23 December 1991
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox, Wright and Crawford JJ

Judgment Number: A114/1991
Number of paragraphs: 54

Serial No 114/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 26/1991

AARON LEIGH JEFFREY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX J
WRIGHT J
CRAWFORD J
23 December 1991

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 114/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 26/1991

AARON LEIGH JEFFREY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX J
23 December 1991

The appellant was found guilty of the murder of his father. On Saturday 11 November 1989 the latter's body had been found in the garden of his home in a remote locality on the way to Bakers Beach and approximately 9 km. off the Frankford Highway. This locality, known as Marana Drive, has approximately thirteen houses built on it, some of them occupied as permanent homes and others merely as sea–side holiday cottages. On the medical evidence, death had occurred no later than the afternoon of Thursday 9 November and no earlier than 6 November. The deceased was last seen alive on the afternoon of Wednesday 8 November, and other evidence pointed strongly to the death having occurred in the late afternoon or early evening of that day. It was common ground at the trial that the appellant had visited his father's house twice on that day, the second visit being at about 6.00pm, although he denied seeing him on that occasion. It was expressly conceded on the hearing of the appeal that the jury could properly have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased received the injuries which killed him at or about this time and that the appellant had the opportunity to have inflicted them.

The main injuries sustained by the deceased were 36 individual fractures of the rib cage, which had in consequence collapsed causing suffocation. The pathologist's opinion was that they had been caused by a "fairly severe blunt injury to the chest, blunt meaning not with a sharp object but something fairly blunt and a broad base ... it could have been a leg, shoe, fist, forearms, anything with a nice flat surface". There were signs of a scuffle in the vegetable patch where the body was found.

The deceased lived on his own and evidence called from other residents and frequenters of the Bakers Beach Road was to the effect that no strangers other than the appellant had been observed in the area that day. The appellant had been living at Melrose in a caravan park and had last seen his father about two months before. On Wednesday 8 November he had hitch–hiked to Bakers Beach and received a lift to the door of his father's house. He had virtually no money and…

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 Jeffrey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jeffrey v The Queen [1991] TASSC 114
Case: [1991] TASSC 114
Decision Date: 23 December 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Jeffrey v The Queen was heard by Cox, Wright, and Crawford JJ in the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Aaron Leigh Jeffrey, was found guilty of the murder of his father and sought to appeal the conviction. The primary issues addressed in the appeal were the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the admissibility of statistical data regarding blood groupings, and the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the use of the appellant's alleged lies in assessing guilt. The court examined the circumstantial evidence, which included the presence of the appellant's blood on the victim's property and the appellant's alleged lies regarding his second visit to his father's house. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were proper. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Orders