R v Baxter

Case [2019] QCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baxter [2019] QCA 87

PARTIES:

R
v
BAXTER, Nicholas Aaron
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 276 of 2017
SC No 74 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 20 November 2017 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 June 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Jackson and Crow JJ

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Conviction quashed.

3.   A retrial ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter of his child – where the appellant argues the evidence did not establish traumatic injury – where the appellant argues there was no proof that the appellant caused the deceased to collapse – where the appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the medical findings relevant to cause of death could be attributed to anything done by the appellant – whether the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter – where the deceased sustained rib fractures prior to sustaining the brain injury the subject of the charges – where evidence of the rib fractures was ruled admissible pursuant to s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) subject to the need to give appropriate directions and warnings to the jury – where the appellant challenges the admissibility of the rib fracture evidence on the ground that it did not constitute evidence of the “history of the domestic relationship” because it was disputed who caused the rib fractures – whether evidence of the rib fractures sustained by the deceased should have been admitted pursuant to s 132B

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter – where the deceased sustained rib fractures prior to sustaining the brain injury the subject of the charges – where the evidence of the rib fractures was ruled admissible pursuant to s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) subject to the need to give appropriate directions and warnings to the jury – where the trial judge declined to exercise the discretion in s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) as unfairly prejudicial – where the appellant challenges the decision not to exclude the evidence as unfairly prejudicial – where the appellant argues the admission of the rib fracture evidence as relevant evidence of the history of the domestic relationship carried with it a high risk of impermissible reasoning that the appellant caused the death of…

Continue reading R v Baxter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Baxter [2019] QCA 87
Case
[2019] QCA 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baxter involved the appellant who was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of his child. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, the admissibility of evidence of rib fractures sustained by the deceased prior to the brain injury, and whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury. The court was required to determine whether the evidence established that the appellant caused the traumatic injury, and whether the rib fracture evidence was properly construed as evidence of the history of the domestic relationship. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge erred in admitting the rib fracture evidence and in giving directions to the jury.

The court found that the evidence, including medical evidence, established that the deceased child sustained a traumatic brain injury that led to his death. The court held that the verdict of manslaughter was open on the evidence and was not unreasonable or insupportable. The court also found that the rib fracture evidence was admissible pursuant to s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), subject to appropriate directions and warnings to the jury. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence of the rib fractures should not have been admitted as it did not constitute evidence of the “history of the domestic relationship” because it was disputed who caused the rib fractures. The court held that the rib fracture evidence was relevant to the history of the domestic relationship as it provided context to the events leading up to the child's death. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in declining to exercise the discretion in s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) as unfairly prejudicial, and that the directions given to the jury were appropriate.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of manslaughter. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that the rib fracture evidence was properly admitted and did not carry a high risk of impermissible reasoning that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in the directions given to the jury.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, uphold the conviction of manslaughter, and order a retrial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the medical findings relevant to cause of death could be attributed to anything done by the appellant. The court also found that the admission of the rib fracture evidence did not carry a high risk of impermissible reasoning that the appellant caused the death of the deceased, and that the directions given to the jury were appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Conviction quashed.

3. A retrial ordered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Section 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) provides:“132B Evidence of domestic violence(1)This section applies to a criminal proceeding against a person for an offence defined in the Criminal Code, chapters 28 to 30.(2)Relevant evidence of the history of the domestic relationship between the defendant and the person against whom the offence was committed is admissible in evidence in the proceeding.(3)In this section—domestic relationship means a relevant relationship under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012, section 13.Note—Under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012, section 13, a relevant relationship means an intimate personal relationship, a family relationship or an informal care relationship, as defined under that Act.” It is plain that the accused and his deceased son Matthew stood in a domestic relationship. The issue to be determined was whether the “rib fracture evidence” was properly construed as “relevant evidence of the history of the domestic relationship”. The touchstone is relevance, the prosecutor submitting that the use of “the rib fracture evidence” was “that it makes the injury sustained on the 3rd of November more intelligible or explicable, for without that context, such events may appear improbable or to have occurred out of the blue.”[323] The primary judge accepted this submission, subject to appropriate directions.[323]AB 59/20-22. On appeal the appellant argues that the rib fracture evidence cannot be properly construed as evidence “of the history” of any relationship as:[324]“[T]hese fractures could have been a residual symptom of events which occurred in the course of the relationship. But to be “relevant”, and to be a part of a “history of” their relationship, it had to be established that the fractures were in fact the product of deliberate trauma inflicted by the appellant upon Matthew.”[324]Paragraph 99 of the appellant’s written outline. Section 132B (and s 132A) were inserted by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1977 (Qld). As observed by Heydon J in Roach v The Queen,[325] the Queensland Legislature evinced a disinclination to embrace the rule in Pfennig v The Queen. Section 132B(2) is curiously drafted insofar as it utilises the word “relevant” as descriptive of the type of evidence which is admissible. That is hardly surprising as no one would suggest that “irrelevant” evidence of a history of a domestic relationship ought to be admitted.[325](2011) 242 CLR 610 at p 630. The word “relevant” can only be given meaning if s 132B(2) is read in its broadest form. That is evidence of what may or may not have occurred between participants in a domestic relationship is admissible as long as it bears a sufficient rational connection to an issue at trial. One can see examples of some use being put to the word “relevant”, in particular as s 132B(1) applies in relation to proceedings against a person in respect of violence, i.e. chapters 28 to 30 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.