R v Ashman - [2022] QSC 99

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Ashman [2022] QSC 99

PARTIES:
R

v
JAKE SCOTT ASHMAN
(accused)

FILENO/S: Indictment Rockhampton Supreme Court 42 of 2022

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Trial

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Maryborough; trial heard in Rockhampton

DELIVEREDON: 27 May 2022

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 9-12 and 27 May 2022

JUDGE: Davis J

VERDICT: Guilty of murder

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE -

MURDER - VERDICT - where the accused and the deceased were living in adjoining units - where the deceased was stabbed to death - where the accused told police he was not involved in the killing - where the accused told police that he had found the deceased dead - where the accused told police that he also found a note instructing him to do certain things - where the accused disposed of knives and other things - where at trial the accused recanted his version to police - where the accused gave evidence that he was attacked by the deceased and killed him in self-defence - where at trial the only two issues were whether the accused had an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased and whether he acted in self-defence - where the accused admitted initially lying to police - whether the lies demonstrated consciousness of guilt - whether post-offence conduct demonstrated consciousness of guilt - whether the Crown had proved an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm - whether the Crown had proved that the accused did not act in self-defence

Criminal Code, s 271, s 272, s 291, s 293, s 300, s 302, s 303, s 576, s 615B, s 615C, s 644

Evidence Act 1977, s 39PB(3)

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, followed

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250, cited
Griffiths v The Queen (1994) 69 ALJR 77, followed
Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630, followed
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308, followed
R v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, cited
R v Mitchell [2008] 2 Qd R 142, cited
R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15, followed
R v Murray [2016] QCA 342, cited
R v Pentland [2020] QSC 231, followed
R v Roughan & Jones (2007) 179 A Crim R 389, followed
R v Saxon [2020] QCA 85, followed
R v Shields [2022] QCA 51, cited
R v Swaffield and Pavic (1998) 192 CLR 159, cited
R v Trebeck [2018] QCA 183, cited
R v Vidler (2000) 110 A Crim R 77, cited

R v Wilmot (2006) 165 A Crim R 14, cited

Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319, followed Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, followed Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, followed

COUNSEL:
E L Kelso for the Crown

K Bryson for the accused, Jake Scott Ashman

SOLICITORS:

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 Ashman

Details

AGLC: R v Ashman [2022] QSC 99
Case: [2022] QSC 99
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Ashman concerned the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, who resided in an adjoining unit. The appellant claimed that he had killed the deceased in self-defence after the deceased had attacked him. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia, which considered the evidence presented at the trial, including the appellant's statements to police, his post-offence conduct, and his trial testimony.

The court was required to decide whether the Crown had successfully proven that the appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased and whether the appellant's claim of self-defence was credible. The court also needed to determine if the appellant's initial false statements to police and his subsequent actions after the offence demonstrated consciousness of guilt, and whether these factors could be considered in assessing his intention and the validity of his self-defence plea.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The court found that the appellant's actions and statements, including his recantation of the false police report, did not necessarily indicate consciousness of guilt but could be understood as attempts to cover up the incident due to fear or confusion. The court accepted the appellant's testimony that he acted in self-defence, finding it more credible than the Crown's case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the appellant's self-defence plea was not disproven by the evidence presented. The court held that the appellant's initial false report to police and his subsequent conduct could not be used to establish intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and that the appellant's self-defence claim remained a viable defence.

Orders