Legal Research
Cases
John Quail v The Queen

John Quail v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 336 18 December 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0223

JOHN QUAIL	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, TATE and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 336
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Quail [2013] VSC 190 (Coghlan J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Attempted murder – Whether failure to leave self-defence or accident – Appellant and victim gave contradictory accounts – Whether trial judge erred in withdrawing issues of self-defence and accident from jury – Whether actus reus of offence was sufficiently described – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms C A Boston	Haines & Polites
For the Crown	Mr R A Elston QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

TATE JA:

The appellant, having been convicted of attempted murder following a trial in the Supreme Court, now appeals against his conviction.

The issue raised by the appeal is whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave to the jury the question whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had not acted in self-defence or that the shooting was not by accident.

We have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Priest JA, in which he has conveniently summarised the Crown case concerning the circumstances in which Mr Ridis came to be shot by the appellant and the appellant’s subsequent driving of his car at Mr Ridis.

The defence case was that the victim, Mr Ridis, had brought the pistol with silencer to the scene of the shooting and that during the appellant’s struggle for the pistol Mr Ridis had been injured when the gun discharged. After the shots were fired and the fight over the pistol concluded, the appellant drove his motor vehicle at Mr Ridis in order to prevent Mr Ridis shooting him.

After directing the jury correctly as to the elements of attempted murder, the judge in his charge said:

The accused man is charged with the attempted murder of [Mr Ridis] and in the alternative with intentionally causing him serious injury. The crime of attempted murder is committed if a person does an act or acts towards another with intention to kill that person. Nothing short of intent to kill will be sufficient.
The acts must be more than preparatory, but if the facts in this case are otherwise accepted, that is not an issue. You see, sometimes, you might have some conduct leading up to something happening and it just will not be enough to constitute an attempt, but if you accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, here that the accused man went armed and he shot Mr Ridis, the acts would be more than preparatory, it has gone beyond preparatory in that sense.
It would also be a basis of it that there be no lawful justification or excuse, such as self-defence. Now, self-defence does not arise in…

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 John Quail v The Queen

Details

AGLC: John Quail v The Queen [2014] VSCA 336
Case: [2014] VSCA 336
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of John Quail v The Queen, the appellant, John Quail, sought to appeal his conviction for attempted murder. The central dispute in this case was whether the trial judge had correctly decided to remove the issues of self-defence and accident from the jury’s consideration, and if the actus reus of the offence was adequately described to the jury. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the issues of self-defence and accident from the jury's consideration, given the contradictory accounts provided by both the appellant and the victim. Secondly, whether the actus reus of the offence of attempted murder was sufficiently described to the jury in a manner that allowed them to make an informed decision. The court needed to determine if the trial judge’s decision to withdraw these issues from the jury was justified and whether the jury had all the necessary information to make a fair assessment.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in removing the issues of self-defence and accident from the jury’s consideration. The court held that the evidence presented did not support a reasonable possibility that the appellant acted in self-defence or that the incident was an accident. The court further held that the actus reus of the offence of attempted murder was sufficiently described to the jury, allowing them to understand the elements of the offence and make a fair assessment of the evidence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the conviction.

Orders