2.Set aside orders 1 and 2 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 8 December 2015, and in their place order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland
Representation
W Sofronoff QC with D C Boyle and S J Hedge for the appellant (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))
M J Byrne QC with M J Copley QC for the respondent (instructed by Peter Shields Lawyers)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
The Queen v Baden‑Clay
Criminal law – Criminal liability – Where respondent's wife disappeared and body later found – Where respondent involved in sexual affair with another woman – Where some injuries to respondent's cheek likely caused by fingernails – Where respondent gave evidence at trial denying involvement in killing wife and disposing of body – Where jury convicted respondent of murder – Where Court of Appeal held hypothesis of unintentional killing not excluded by prosecution and substituted verdict of manslaughter – Where common ground on appeal that respondent killed his wife – Whether hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder open – Whether jury's verdict unreasonable – Whether jury entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that respondent acted with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when he killed his wife.
Words and phrases – "circumstantial evidence", "hypothesis consistent with innocence", "intention", "intractably neutral", "lies", "motive", "post‑offence conduct", "role of the jury", "unreasonable verdict", "whole of the evidence".
Criminal Code (Q), s 668E(1).
FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, BELL, KEANE AND GORDON JJ. On 15 July 2014, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland before Byrne SJA and a jury, the respondent was found guilty of the murder of his wife, Allison Baden‑Clay.
The respondent appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland on the ground that the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal (Holmes CJ, Fraser and Gotterson JJA) allowed the appeal on that ground, set aside the respondent's conviction on the charge of murder, and substituted a verdict of manslaughter.
The Court of Appeal held that, although it was open to the jury to find that the respondent had killed his wife, the evidence did not allow the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent intended either to kill her, or to cause her grievous bodily harm. In particular, the Court of Appeal accepted the respondent's submission, made for the first time on appeal, that the prosecution had not excluded the hypothesis that the respondent had struck his wife in the course of a struggle and that she had died as the result…
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 Baden-Clay
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35
Case
[2016] HCA 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the conviction of the respondent, Mr Baden-Clay, for the murder of his wife. The respondent had been convicted of murder by a jury, but the Queensland Court of Appeal had substituted a verdict of manslaughter, finding that the prosecution had not excluded the hypothesis of unintentional killing. The common ground on appeal to the High Court was that the respondent had killed his wife.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether a hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder remained open to the jury, whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable, and whether the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent acted with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when he killed his wife. The Court considered the role of circumstantial evidence, including the respondent's post-offence conduct, his lies, and the presence of leaves from his home on the deceased's body, in assessing his intention.
The High Court reasoned that the jury was entitled to consider the whole of the evidence, including the respondent's inconsistent statements and his actions after his wife's disappearance, as evidence of guilt. The Court found that the jury was not bound to accept the respondent's version of events and that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, was capable of supporting a conclusion of murder. The presence of leaves from the respondent's property on the deceased's body, despite the body being found elsewhere, and the respondent's attempts to conceal his wife's disappearance were significant factors. The Court concluded that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent possessed the necessary intent for murder.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Queensland Court of Appeal, and restored the jury's verdict of guilty of murder.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1 and 2 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 8 December 2015, and in their place order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
The appeal should be allowed and the verdict of guilty of murder restored.The evidence at trial The respondent gave evidence that he, his wife and their three daughters were at home on the night of 19 April 2012. He said that he went to bed at about 10 pm, leaving his wife, who was watching television, in the living room. He awoke just after 6 am on 20 April 2012. His wife was not at home, but she often went for an early morning walk. That morning, he was responsible for getting the children ready for school and taking them there. He was "under the pump a little bit" and was "rushing that morning". He said he cut himself shaving. The respondent phoned and sent text messages to his wife, but there was no response. He also called his parents to tell them that he did not know where his wife was. He went driving around the suburb looking for her. At 7.15 am he called 000 to report her missing. The police arrived at the respondent's home at 8 am. The respondent was asked whether he and his wife were estranged; he denied it. He was asked whether there was an "indication that the marriage is going to break up" and he answered "Um I hope not." He went on to say that he "had an affair … that ended last year." The deceased's body was found on 30 April 2012 under a bridge on a bank of Kholo Creek, some 13 kilometres from her home. The forensic evidence Dr Nathan Milne, the forensic pathologist who conducted the post‑mortem examination of the deceased's body, was unable to determine the cause of death because of the significant level of decomposition of the body, but in his opinion, the deceased did not die of natural causes. There were no definite injuries found which might have suggested the use of a weapon. It may be noted that there was no evidence of a skull fracture. Dr Milne estimated that the time of death was consistent with the last time she was seen alive 11 days earlier. There were no signs suggestive of drowning. Dr Milne said that if the deceased had fallen from the bridge onto the ground, significant injuries would have been expected, but acknowledged that if she fell into the water, there may not be detectable injuries. Although the deceased did at various times suffer from depression, for which she was prescribed medication, Professor Olaf Drummer, a forensic pharmacologist and toxicologist, concluded that consumption of drugs did not contribute to her death. In addition, none of the medical practitioners or psychologists who had treated her held any concerns that she was suicidal. Leaves found on the body were from trees of six species that grew at the respondent and his wife's home; four of these did not grow at the site at which the body was found. The respondent and his wife's eldest child thought that her mother was wearing a "sloppy jacket" and pyjama pants at the time the deceased was watching television. The deceased's body was found clothed in three‑quarter length pants, socks, sneakers and a singlet top which had a bra built into it.
Decision
Reasons for decision
FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, BELL, KEANE AND GORDON JJ
In all the circumstances of this case, other than speculating about how things might have happened, it was open to the jury rationally to conclude that the respondent killed his wife and did so with intent, at least, to cause her grievous bodily harm. Upon the whole of the evidence led at trial, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty of murder.Conclusion The appeal should be allowed. Orders 1 and 2 of the Court of Appeal made on 8 December 2015 should be set aside and in their place the appeal to that Court should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, BELL, KEANE AND GORDON JJ