Legal Research
Cases
Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania

Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania

Case [2007] TASSC 76 26 September 2007

Jurisdiction

Duty to put defence case

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 76

CITATION: Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 76

PARTIES:  LAMBERT, Bradley Rex
  v
  TASMANIA, The State of

STOKES, Darryn
v
TASMANIA, The State of

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)

JURISDICTION: APPELLATE

FILE NO/S: CCA 70/2005

CCA 71/2005

DELIVERED ON: 26 September 2007

DELIVERED AT: Hobart

HEARING DATE: 15, 16 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Underwood CJ, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Summing up – Duty to put defence case.
RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620; Lyons v R A82/1992; R v Conway (2005) 157 A Crim R 474; Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 554; Basto v R (1954) 91 CLR 628; Brown v R [1972] Tas SR 57; R vChecconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [802]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and enquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Appeal by convicted persons – Applications to reduce sentence – When granted – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Generally – Murder – Two victims – Sentences of 42 years with 28 year non-parole period – Whether manifestly excessive.

Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1010]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant Lambert:  T K Jago
             Appellant Stokes:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  D G Coates SC
Solicitors:
             Appellant Lambert:  Legal Aid Commission
             Appellant Stokes:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 76

Number of paragraphs: 134

Serial No 76/2007
File No CCA 70/2005
CCA 71/2005

BRADLEY REX LAMBERT v STATE OF TASMANIA
DARRYN STOKES v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
UNDERWOOD CJ

SLICER J (dissenting in part)
BLOW J

26 September 2007

Orders of the Court:

Appeal CCA 70/2005

Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Appeal CCA 71/2005

Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 76/2007
File No CCA 70/2005
CCA 71/2005

BRADLEY REX LAMBERT v STATE OF TASMANIA
DARRYN STOKES v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
UNDERWOOD CJ

26 September 2007

I agree with Blow J that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case by reason of the learned trial judge's failure to remind the jury of all the arguments advanced on behalf of each accused. It is the duty of a trial judge to see that an accused gets a fair trial in accordance with law, and part of this duty requires him or her to put the accused's case to the jury fairly. See RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620 at 637 and the other cases referred to by Blow J in his reasons for judgment at pars4 – 8.

The Criminal Code, s402(1), requires that an appeal be allowed in the event "that on any ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice". However, subs(2) provides:
"(2) The Court may, notwithstanding that it is 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 Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 76
Case: [2007] TASSC 76
Decision Date: 26 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lambert and Stokes v Tasmania, the appellants, Leonard Lambert and Trevor Stokes, were convicted of the murder of James Ward and sentenced to life imprisonment. The primary issue before the court was whether the summing up by the trial judge correctly reflected the defence case and whether it was appropriate to instruct the jury on the lesser offence of manslaughter. Lambert and Stokes argued that the trial judge failed to adequately summarise their defence case, which included claims of self-defence and provocation. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's summing up was erroneous and whether it prejudiced the appellants' right to a fair trial.

The court considered whether the summing up should have included instructions on manslaughter, given the evidence presented by the defence. It examined whether the trial judge was required to address every defence argument, including those that were not supported by the evidence, or if the judge was only obliged to instruct the jury on the defences that had a factual basis. The court held that while it was not necessary for the judge to instruct the jury on every defence argument, the summing up must accurately reflect the defence case as presented. In this instance, the court found that the trial judge did not adequately summarise the defence's case, particularly regarding the self-defence and provocation arguments, which could have led to the jury considering a lesser charge.

The court concluded that the trial judge's summing up was deficient as it did not accurately reflect the defence case, thereby potentially depriving the appellants of a fair trial. The errors in the summing up were such that they could have influenced the jury's decision, leading to the court ordering a retrial. The court did not, however, find that the errors were so severe as to result in the convictions being quashed outright. Instead, it emphasised the importance of a fair and accurate summing up in criminal trials. The final orders included a direction for a retrial of the appellants on the murder charges, with proper instructions to the jury regarding the defence arguments.

Orders