R v Batchelor

Case [2003] QCA 246


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246

PARTIES:

R
v
BATCHELOR, Jason Grant

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 335 of 2002
SC No 659 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDERS:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE - where appellant convicted of murder – where appellant made telephone admissions to police negotiator  - where police officer tape-recorded the appellant’s admissions in field interview - whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the telephone and tape-recorded confessions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION – where appellant intoxicated at time of offence – where jury concluded the appellant formed the intent to commit the offence - whether the learned trial judge’s directions to the jury as to intoxication were inadequate

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 668E (1A), s 28(3)
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 246, s 249, s 254, s 266

Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1, considered
Conway v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 358, applied
Festa v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 291, applied
R v Cho [2001] QCA 196; CA No 1 of 2001, 25 May 2001, considered
R v Nicholson [1956] St R Qd 520, considered
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, applied

Viro v The Queen (1976) 141 CLR 88, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Bryne QC for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court at Cairns on 26 September 2002 of murdering Graeme Leslie Mills and John Andrew Ginnivan on 16 March 2001.  He appeals from those convictions on three grounds.  He contends that, first, the evidence of confessions in a conversation with police negotiator Senior Constable Paula Byrne was wrongly admitted; second, the tape recorded admissions made to Detective Hodgman in a field interview were also wrongly admitted, and, third, the learned primary judge's directions to the jury as to intoxication were inadequate.

The admissions to police negotiator Byrne

(a)         The evidence

  1. At 6.56 am on 16 March 2001, the appellant rang the "000" emergency number which was answered at the Mareeba police station by Sgt Ewin.  The appellant identified himself, said Sgt Meadows knew his address and requested that Sgt Meadows be told, "To come and fucking get me and lock me up."  He spoke in a…

Continue reading R v Batchelor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246
Case
[2003] QCA 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Batchelor, was convicted of murder and appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The appeal focused on two primary issues: the admission of certain evidence and the adequacy of the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the impact of intoxication on intent to commit the offence. The central issue was whether the trial judge made any errors in admitting the appellant's telephone and tape-recorded confessions and whether the directions given to the jury about the effects of intoxication on intent were sufficient.

The court assessed whether the evidence obtained from the appellant's admissions was properly admitted and whether these admissions were made voluntarily. The court also examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning intoxication and intent were adequate. The appellant argued that the evidence should not have been admitted due to procedural irregularities, and that the jury's understanding of intoxication's impact on forming intent was misdirected.

The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments concerning the admission of evidence, holding that the procedures followed were appropriate and the evidence was admissible. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient, and the jury's conclusion that the appellant formed the intent to commit the offence was properly supported by the evidence and instructions. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.