R v Baker - [2014] QCA 5

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baker [2014] QCA 5

PARTIES:

R
v
BAKER, David Alan
aka BALDWIN
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 174 of 2012
SC No 199 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2013

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Gotterson JA and North J concurring as to the orders made, Morrison J dissenting

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The appellant’s conviction is set aside and a re-trial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted after trial of attempted murder – where the appellant and the complainant had been in a relationship – where at the time of the offence they had become estranged – where the appellant stabbed the complainant a number of times below the abdomen – where the injuries to the complainant’s heart were life threatening – where the appellant was charged with attempted murder or alternatively a malicious act with intent – where it was not in issue that the appellant stabbed the complainant causing her grievous bodily harm – where it was submitted that the learned trial judge had not complied with the obligation upon a trial judge imposed by s 620 of the Criminal Code – whether the failure to independently identify the evidence that might be relevant to consideration of the intent to kill as opposed to the intent to cause grievous bodily harm deprived the jury of judicial guidance on important matters – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 620
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 18, s 101, s 102

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, cited
Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166; [2005] HCA 34, cited
R v Fox (No 2) [2000] 1 Qd R 640; [1999] QCA 140, cited
R v Mogg (2000) 12 A Crim R 417; [2000] QCA 244, cited

COUNSEL:

A Boe, with A I O’Brien, for the appellant/applicant
D Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russo Lawyers for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by North J and his Honour’s reasons which I have had the benefit of reading.

I wish to express my concurrence with his Honour’s observations on the summing up in paragraphs [89] to [91] inclusive of the reasons and his conclusions that a substantial miscarriage of justice was occasioned.

The features of the evidence identified by his Honour for specific reference in the directions to the jury had a distinct prominence in this case. By virtue of that, the jury was required to make findings with…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2014] QCA 5
Case: [2014] QCA 5
Decision Date: 7 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Baker, the appellant was convicted of attempted murder after stabbing the complainant multiple times below the abdomen, causing life-threatening injuries to her heart. The appellant and the complainant had been in a relationship but had become estranged at the time of the offence. The jury convicted the appellant on the basis of intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with the alternative charge of a malicious act with intent. The appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge concerning the jury's consideration of the intent to kill versus the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to guide the jury on identifying evidence relevant to the intent to kill deprived the jury of necessary judicial guidance, thereby leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the trial judge's obligations under section 620 of the Criminal Code to ensure that the jury was properly directed on all aspects of the case, including the necessary intent for the offence of attempted murder. The court concluded that the trial judge's failure to independently identify the evidence relevant to the intent to kill was a misdirection that significantly impacted the jury's consideration of the case.

Consequently, the court found that the misdirection and non-direction deprived the jury of essential judicial guidance on critical matters of intent, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction was set aside. The court ordered a re-trial to ensure that the jury receives proper direction on all aspects of the case, particularly the intent required for the offence of attempted murder.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The appellant’s conviction is set aside and a re-trial is ordered.

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 Baker [2014] QCA 5
PARTIES:	R v BAKER, David Alan aka BALDWIN (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 174 of 2012 SC No 199 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 August 2013
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Gotterson JA and North J concurring as to the orders made, Morrison J dissenting
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The appellant’s conviction is set aside and a re-trial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted after trial of attempted murder – where the appellant and the complainant had been in a relationship – where at the time of the offence they had become estranged – where the appellant stabbed the complainant a number of times below the abdomen – where the injuries to the complainant’s heart were life threatening – where the appellant was charged with attempted murder or alternatively a malicious act with intent – where it was not in issue that the appellant stabbed the complainant causing her grievous bodily harm – where it was submitted that the learned trial judge had not complied with the obligation upon a trial judge imposed by s 620 of the Criminal Code – whether the failure to independently identify the evidence that might be relevant to consideration of the intent to kill as opposed to the intent to cause grievous bodily harm deprived the jury of judicial guidance on important matters – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 620 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 18, s 101, s 102 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, cited Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166; [2005] HCA 34, cited R v Fox (No 2) [2000] 1 Qd R 640; [1999] QCA 140, cited R v Mogg (2000) 12 A Crim R 417; [2000] QCA 244, cited
COUNSEL:	A Boe, with A I O’Brien, for the appellant/applicant D Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Russo Lawyers for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent