R v Bagley - [2014] QCA 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bagley [2014] QCA 271

PARTIES:

R
v
BAGLEY, Anthony Stewart
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 52 of 2014
SC No 242 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the appellant had been travelling in a car with the Crown’s two principal witnesses, Mr and Mrs Koulis, and the deceased – where the appellant got out of the car and shot the deceased, who was unarmed, in Mr Koulis' presence – where the appellant submitted it was open on the evidence to infer that he genuinely and reasonably believed that there was a shot fired at him, so that he had to respond in self-defence – where the appellant submitted that the evidence of the Koulises that he sought to conceal the killing could not have been accepted because their credibility was irretrievably damaged by inconsistencies – whether on the whole of the evidence the jury should have had a reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution had negatived self-defence – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the appellant complained that the trial judge’s directions gave the jury the impression that they could use his failure to give evidence to draw adverse inferences in considering provocation – where the appellant contended the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the weight to be given to his exculpatory out-of-court statements – whether the trial judge erred in his comments to the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where both Koulises had taken steps to dispose of the appellant’s gun and clothes – where the appellant contended that they were accessories after the fact and that the jury should have been given a warning about the dangers of convicting on their uncorroborated evidence – where the appellant’s counsel at trial did not seek such a direction – where the trial judge did give a direction concerning what was said to be inconsistency in Mr Koulis’ evidence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a warning about the dangers of convicting the appellant on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED…

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 Bagley

Details

AGLC: R v Bagley [2014] QCA 271
Case: [2014] QCA 271
Decision Date: 24 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bagley, appealed against his conviction for the murder of an individual. The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimonies of Mr and Mrs Koulis, who were in the car with Bagley and the deceased at the time of the incident. The evidence indicated that Bagley exited the car and shot the unarmed deceased, who was in the presence of Mr Koulis. Bagley argued that he had acted in self-defence, believing that he was under attack. He also claimed that the credibility of the Koulises was compromised due to inconsistencies in their testimonies, which meant that the jury should have had reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case against him. Additionally, Bagley contended that the trial judge misdirected the jury in several respects, including failing to warn them about the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices and improperly admitting certain evidence.

The court examined whether the jury should have had reasonable doubt about the self-defence claim, considering the evidence as a whole. It also considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct, including the handling of Bagley's failure to give evidence and the weight to be given to his out-of-court statements. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the trial judge should have warned the jury about the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices and whether the admission of an interview, despite no functioning recorder, was erroneous. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge's directions and evidentiary decisions were correct.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable given the evidence, and the trial judge did not err in his directions or in admitting the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and Bagley's conviction for murder was upheld. The court did not find any miscarriage of justice in the trial proceedings or the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction 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.

CITATION:	R v Bagley [2014] QCA 271
PARTIES:	R v BAGLEY, Anthony Stewart (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 52 of 2014 SC No 242 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the appellant had been travelling in a car with the Crown’s two principal witnesses, Mr and Mrs Koulis, and the deceased – where the appellant got out of the car and shot the deceased, who was unarmed, in Mr Koulis' presence – where the appellant submitted it was open on the evidence to infer that he genuinely and reasonably believed that there was a shot fired at him, so that he had to respond in self-defence – where the appellant submitted that the evidence of the Koulises that he sought to conceal the killing could not have been accepted because their credibility was irretrievably damaged by inconsistencies – whether on the whole of the evidence the jury should have had a reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution had negatived self-defence – whether the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the appellant complained that the trial judge’s directions gave the jury the impression that they could use his failure to give evidence to draw adverse inferences in considering provocation – where the appellant contended the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the weight to be given to his exculpatory out-of-court statements – whether the trial judge erred in his comments to the jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where both Koulises had taken steps to dispose of the appellant’s gun and clothes – where the appellant contended that they were accessories after the fact and that the jury should have been given a warning about the dangers of convicting on their uncorroborated evidence – where the appellant’s counsel at trial did not seek such a direction – where the trial judge did give a direction concerning what was said to be inconsistency in Mr Koulis’ evidence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a warning about the dangers of convicting the appellant on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices – whether there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED…