R v Baggott - [2000] QCA 153

[2000] QCA 153

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

[R v BAGGOTT]

CA No 1 of 2000

THE QUEEN

KEVIN JOHN BAGGOTT

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/05/2000

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced after a trial in the Supreme Court to imprisonment for eleven years for the offence of manslaughter alleged to have been committed on 17 July 1998.

The victim was the applicant's former wife, to whom the applicant had been married in 1996. The applicant and the deceased, together with her daughter Cara of a previous relationship, had lived together for some two years until the applicant left her on 31 March 1998.

The separation was followed by acrimonious disputes about custody of and access to Cara, and also about a Nissan vehicle in the applicant's possession that the deceased was claiming from him.

On the morning of Friday 17 July 1998 the applicant communicated with the deceased and said he was willing to swap the Nissan vehicle for an older Mazda sedan which she was driving. It was arranged that she would come to his home at 11 Lavelle Street, Nerang, to carry out the exchange. She was last heard from in a telephone call which she made to a Mr Glendinning, who was the man with whom she was living at the time. She was not seen again and no sign of her body has ever been discovered. Glendinning reported her as missing at about 7 p.m. that evening.

After lengthy interviews on Saturday 18 July 1998, the applicant told police that the arrangements to exchange cars had been made by a telephone call on the Friday morning; that the deceased had said she was coming over to his house, and that she was bringing the car to exchange. She never arrived, he said, and she also, he said, failed to attend a counselling session at the Family Court at 11.30 a.m. and again at the Court at 2 o'clock that afternoon.

The applicant said he had not seen her all day. A search was conducted at the applicant's house on Sunday 26 July 1998, and the applicant was then driven back to the police station. In the course of the journey, the applicant said "I did it". The conversation that followed was tape-recorded.

The applicant recounted the events which he said had happened, and which, according to him, were that the deceased had arrived on the Friday morning and had come in under his house. In the course of what was said between them after that, she told the applicant, or so he said, that he would never see Cara again. He hit her a single blow with his fist. She fell and hit her head on the concrete floor and died.

He took her body down to a boat ramp at the Nerang River and put it in the water. It floated out for about 15 feet and then sank. That was at about 9.30 a.m. on…

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 Baggott

Details

AGLC: R v Baggott [2000] QCA 153
Case: [2000] QCA 153
Decision Date: 03/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Baggott, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal against the applicant's conviction and sentence for the manslaughter of his former wife. The applicant had been sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment after a trial in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that should have been taken into account. The majority of the court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the applicant had not established that the sentence was excessive. The court also found that the applicant had not presented any mitigating factors and that there were aggravating factors, such as the disposal of the body, which supported a sentence at the higher end of the range. The dissenting judge argued that the lack of a clear factual basis for sentencing meant that the sentence of eleven years was beyond the appropriate range for manslaughter without established aggravating circumstances. The Court of Appeal ultimately refused the application for leave to appeal and upheld the original sentence.

Orders