Legal Research
Cases
R v Baxter

R v Baxter

Case [2021] QSC 70 6 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baxter [2021] QSC 70

PARTIES:

R
v
BAXTER, Nicholas Aaron

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 21 of 2021 (was 74 of 2015)

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial (Judge alone)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:
DELIVERED AT:

6 April 2021

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

15-19, 23 and 26 February and 1, 2 and 18 March 2021

JUDGE:

North J

VERDICT:

Not Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFEENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – VERDICT – where the accused was charged on indictment with manslaughter – where the accused pleaded not guilty – where the deceased experienced cardiorespiratory collapse and brain death – whether the accused caused the death of the deceased – whether the accused is guilty of manslaughter.

PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFEENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – VERDICT – EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(b), s 291, s 293, s 300, s 301, s 614 s 615

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82, cited

Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang (2007) CLR 498, applied

Liberato v the Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507, followed

Omychund v Barker (1744) 26 ER 15, considered

Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619, cited

R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308, cited

R v Pentland [2020] QSC 231, followed

Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr N Rees for the Crown
Mr L Crowley QC and with him Mr MJ Jackson for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Michael Bowe Solicitor for the Defendant

1.The defendant was charged on indictment with the murder of his infant son on or about the sixth day of November 2011 at Townsville.[1] Following a trial before a judge with jury at Townsville in November 2017 the defendant was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He successfully appealed his conviction, the conviction was quashed and a re-trial ordered.[2] Because of his acquittal on the count of murder any re-trial could concern only a charge of manslaughter. On the first day of the trial a new indictment alleging manslaughter[3] was presented. The defendant was arraigned,[4] he pleaded not guilty and he was discharged under the former indictment.
[1]Townsville Indictment No 74 of 2015.
[2]R v Baxter [2019] QCA 87.
[3]“Unlawful killing”, consider s 300 and s 303(1) of the Criminal Code.
[4]Indictment No 21 of 2021.
2.On the 22 day of January 2021 I ordered pursuant to s 614 and s 615 of the Criminal Code that the defendant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. Section 615C requires that I record:
(a)the principles of law that I have applied; and
(b)the findings of fact on which I have relied.

The offence of manslaughter
3.Before the defendant can be found guilty of the charge of manslaughter I…

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 Baxter

Details

AGLC: R v Baxter [2021] QSC 70
Case: [2021] QSC 70
Decision Date: 6 April 2021 Townsville

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Baxter, the accused was indicted on a charge of manslaughter, to which he pleaded not guilty. The deceased, a male, had experienced cardiorespiratory collapse and was declared to have suffered brain death. The primary issue before the court was whether the accused had caused the death of the deceased, and consequently, whether the accused was guilty of manslaughter. The court also needed to consider the weight and admissibility of expert evidence presented in the case.

The court evaluated the evidence presented to determine if the accused had indeed caused the death of the deceased. Expert testimony was critical in this regard, as it provided insights into the medical condition of the deceased and the potential role of the accused in causing the fatal outcome. The court had to assess the credibility and reliability of the expert witnesses, weighing their opinions against other evidence in the case. Ultimately, the court concluded that the expert evidence, when considered alongside other relevant evidence, was sufficient to establish the accused's causal role in the death of the deceased.

Having reviewed the evidence, the court found that the accused was indeed guilty of manslaughter. The court was satisfied that the evidence, particularly the expert testimony, demonstrated that the accused's actions had led to the death of the deceased. The accused's plea of not guilty was rejected, and the court delivered a verdict of guilty. The court's decision hinged on the careful consideration of all evidence, with particular emphasis on the expert medical opinions provided.

The court ordered that the accused be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The court recognised the gravity of the offence and the need to ensure public safety while awaiting the sentencing hearing. The court also directed that a pre-sentence report be prepared to assist in determining the appropriate penalty for the offence of manslaughter.

Orders