R v Aboud; R v Stanley

Case [2003] QCA 499

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Aboud; R v Stanley [2003] QCA 499

PARTIES:

R
v
ABOUD, Ann Louise
(appellant)

R
v
STANLEY, Ian Charles
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 98 of 2003
CA No 99 of 2003
SC No 8 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In Appeal No 98 of 2003:

  1. The appeal is allowed
  2. The verdict of guilty is set aside and a new trial ordered
  3. Remand the appellant in custody until further or other order of a court with jurisdiction to grant bail

In Appeal No 99 of 2003:

  1. The appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE  OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellants convicted of murder – where appealed convictions – where prior to victim’s death Aboud taped conversations with others regarding prospect of deceased’s death – where allegedly attempting to gain reassurance of untruth of such –  – where claimed not serious about carrying out killing – where told police she knew of no-one who might wish to harm deceased – where issue of lies and their effect on credibility and inferences of guilt raised by prosecution in respect of Aboud and Stanley – where trial judge directed jury regarding lies and consciousness of guilt in respect of Stanley but not Aboud – whether adequate directions given – whether omission fundamental flaw – whether no miscarriage of justice notwithstanding the omission

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTION TO JURY WHERE EVIDENCE POINTS TO MURDER OR NOTHING – where directions in respect of Stanley included elements of murder and manslaughter – where jury told in respect of Aboud only that she was charged with counselling or procuring the killing – where no alternative verdict of manslaughter left in respect of Aboud – where prosecution case conducted so that only verdicts open on evidence in respect of Aboud were murder or not guilty – whether error of law in not leaving open verdict of manslaughter – whether failure to so direct entitled Aboud to have verdict set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE – DIRECTION TO JURY – where evidence of calls made to deceased by Stanley prior to death – where call records showed cell sites through which calls were relayed – where  Stanley sought to draw inference that he was at another location at time of incident – where other circumstantial evidence existed – where directions given as to…

Continue reading R v Aboud; R v Stanley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aboud; R v Stanley [2003] QCA 499
Case
[2003] QCA 499
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The two appellants, Aboud and Stanley, were convicted of the murder of a victim and appealed their convictions to the High Court of Australia. Aboud was convicted of counselling or procuring the murder, while Stanley was convicted of murder. The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's failure to direct the jury regarding lies and consciousness of guilt in respect of Aboud, whether it was an error of law not to leave open an alternative verdict of manslaughter in respect of Aboud, whether the trial judge correctly treated evidence as one element of the circumstantial case rather than an intermediate fact needing to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether separate trials should have been ordered for the appellants due to potential unfairness. The court found that the omission of the direction regarding lies and consciousness of guilt in respect of Aboud was a fundamental flaw, and that the failure to leave open an alternative verdict of manslaughter in respect of Aboud was an error of law. The court also found that the trial judge correctly treated the evidence as one element of the circumstantial case, and that separate trials were not necessary. However, the court found that the errors did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice or improper prejudice against the appellants. The appeal was allowed in respect of Aboud, and the verdict of guilty was set aside and a new trial ordered. The appeal was dismissed in respect of Stanley.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 98 of 2003:

1. The appeal is allowed

2. The verdict of guilty is set aside and a new trial ordered

3. Remand the appellant in custody until further or other order of a court with jurisdiction to grant bail

In Appeal No 99 of 2003:

1. The appeal is 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.