R v Ali - [2001] QCA 331

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Ali [2001] QCA 331

PARTIES: R
v
ALI, Raymond Akhtar
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 327 of 2000
SC No 163 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 17 August 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 11 July 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MURDER – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – where dismembered parts of newborn female baby found – where appellant in a sexual relationship with the mother - where appellant was convicted of murder and improperly interfering with a corpse

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL – - whether the evidence was unsatisfactory or incapable of being acted on by a jury – where the evidence included evidence that the appellant had the necessary knowledge, skill and equipment to carry out the dismemberment – where the appellant was seen near the place where the remains were buried – where such evidence could showed a sufficient circumstantial case against the appellant to justify conviction

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION –CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP - whether the trial judge erred in categorising lies told by the appellant into four main groups rather than particularising each – where this was appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – LIES – when possible that lies might be told through consciousness of guilt of a lesser offence – when directions necessary – where trial judge correctly left the interpretation open to the jury - R v May, R v M and R v R distinguished

Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193, applied
R v Box and Martin [2001] QCA 272; CA No 304 of 2000, CA No 307 of 2000, 20 July 2001, considered

R v M [1995] 1 Qd R 213, distinguished

R v May [1962] Qd R 456, distinguished

R v R [2001] QCA 121; CA No 256 of 2000, 22 February

2001, distinguished

R v Whelow [2001] QCA 193; CA No 210 of 2000, 25 May

2001, applied

Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered

COUNSEL: G P Long for appellant
C W Heaton for respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Thomas JA.

I wish only to add the following comment as to the learned primary judge's directions to the jury on whether any consciousness of guilt arising from the lies may have been guilt as to the offences with which the appellant had been…

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 R v Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Ali [2001] QCA 331
Case: [2001] QCA 331
Decision Date: 17 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ali, the appellant was convicted of the murder of a newborn female baby and the improper interference with a corpse. The body parts of the infant were found in a location where the appellant had been in a sexual relationship with the mother of the child. The court was required to determine whether the conviction was based on evidence that was satisfactory and capable of being acted on by a jury, as well as whether there was any misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge.

The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the evidence and the potential for a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's access to the necessary knowledge, skill, and equipment to carry out the dismemberment, and whether the lies told by the appellant could have been indicative of consciousness of guilt of a lesser offence. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in categorising the lies into four main groups rather than particularising each, and whether this was an appropriate approach.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the trial judge's categorisation of the lies was appropriate. The court held that the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence, was satisfactory and capable of being acted on by a jury. The court also held that the trial judge correctly left the interpretation of the lies open to the jury, and that there was no misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found no miscarriage of justice and affirmed the correctness of the trial judge's approach to the evidence and directions given to the jury.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Ali [2001] QCA 331
PARTIES:	R v ALI, Raymond Akhtar (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 327 of 2000 SC No 163 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 August 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 July 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MURDER – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – where dismembered parts of newborn female baby found – where appellant in a sexual relationship with the mother - where appellant was convicted of murder and improperly interfering with a corpse CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL – - whether the evidence was unsatisfactory or incapable of being acted on by a jury – where the evidence included evidence that the appellant had the necessary knowledge, skill and equipment to carry out the dismemberment – where the appellant was seen near the place where the remains were buried – where such evidence could showed a sufficient circumstantial case against the appellant to justify conviction CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION –CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP - whether the trial judge erred in categorising lies told by the appellant into four main groups rather than particularising each – where this was appropriate CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – LIES – when possible that lies might be told through consciousness of guilt of a lesser offence – when directions necessary – where trial judge correctly left the interpretation open to the jury - R v May, R v M and R v R distinguished Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193, applied R v Box and Martin [2001] QCA 272; CA No 304 of 2000, CA No 307 of 2000, 20 July 2001, considered R v M [1995] 1 Qd R 213, distinguished R v May [1962] Qd R 456, distinguished R v R [2001] QCA 121; CA No 256 of 2000, 22 February 2001, distinguished R v Whelow [2001] QCA 193; CA No 210 of 2000, 25 May 2001, applied Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered
COUNSEL:	G P Long for appellant C W Heaton for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent