Jones v The Queen [2009] HCA 17 29 April 2009 B40/2008
ORDER
Appeal dismissed.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland
Representation
P J Callaghan SC with P E Smith and A M Hoare for the appellant (instructed by Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers)
A W Moynihan SC with B J Power for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Jones v The Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Joint murder trial – Admissibility of evidence adduced by accused of bad character or propensity of co-accused – Whether appellant prevented by trial judge from fully adducing relevant admissible evidence – Whether jury misdirected as to use of evidence of appellant's bad character.
Criminal law – Appeals – Application of proviso.
Words and phrases – "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Criminal Code (Q), s 668E(1A).
FRENCH CJ, HEYDON, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ. On 1 April 2005 the decapitated body of a youth, Morgan Jay Shepherd, was found buried in a shallow grave in bushland near Dayboro, a township north of Brisbane. The deceased's head was found nearby. There were numerous stab wounds to the body. It was not possible to determine whether many, or all, save one, had been inflicted post-mortem. It was possible that death had been occasioned by a single stab wound to the neck.
The deceased was last seen alive in the company of James Patrick Roughan ("Roughan") and the appellant at Roughan's home in Sandgate. The three had been drinking together. The appellant and Roughan were jointly charged with the murder of the deceased. Each pleaded not guilty to that charge. Each pleaded that he was guilty of being an accessory after the fact to the unlawful killing of the deceased by the other and to interfering with a corpse.
The Crown case was that either or both the appellant and Roughan murdered the deceased or that one of them murdered him and the other enabled or aided that other in the attack with the intent of causing death or grievous bodily harm[1].
[1]Section 7(1) of the Criminal Code (Q).
In out of court statements tendered at the trial Roughan and the appellant each claimed that the other had assaulted the deceased and then obtained a knife and stabbed him in the neck. The appellant's account was that he was in fear of Roughan. He described Roughan as a "psycho" and he said that Roughan had been charged with stabbing "one of his mates" on another occasion. Roughan was on bail at the date of the offence on a charge of the attempted murder of a man named McKenna ("the McKenna assault").
The case against the appellant was a strong one. Apart from his admission to having been present at the time of…
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 Jones v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jones v The Queen [2009] HCA 17
Case
[2009] HCA 17
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jones appealed his conviction for murder, which arose from a joint trial with a co-accused. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence relating to the bad character or propensity of the co-accused, and whether Jones was unduly prevented by the trial judge from adducing relevant admissible evidence. A further issue was whether the jury had been misdirected regarding the use of evidence of Jones's own bad character. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in limiting the evidence that could be presented by the appellant concerning the character and propensity of his co-accused. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether any misdirection given to the jury concerning the use of the appellant's bad character evidence constituted a reversible error. The application of the proviso to the Criminal Appeals Act was also a relevant consideration.
The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in joint trials, particularly where the character or propensity of one accused might be relevant to the defence of another. It examined the scope of the trial judge's discretion in admitting or excluding such evidence, balancing the potential for prejudice against its probative value. The Court also considered the proper directions to be given to a jury when evidence of an accused's bad character is admitted, ensuring that it is used only for the purpose for which it was admitted and not as evidence of guilt.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
FRENCH CJ
CJ, HEYDON, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
HAYNE J
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ,
CJ, HEYDON, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ,
HAYNE J