R v Booth - [2005] QCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Booth [2005] QCA 30
PARTIES: R
v
BOOTH, William David
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 302 of 2004 DC No 201 of 2004
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON: 18 February 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 February 2005
JUDGES: McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Jerrard JA
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against Conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant tried by jury on three counts of indictable offences - where trial judge directed the jury that a reasonable doubt is a doubt which they find to be reasonable – whether trial judge erred in directing the jury to this effect
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge refused a request to direct the jury that if they were left in doubt as to where the truth lay, the verdict should be not guilty – where trial judge subsequently gave further directions to the effect that a rejection of part or all of the appellant’s evidence did not necessarily mean that the prosecution had succeeded – whether trial judge erred in giving these directions
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TESTS – WHETHER JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED SAME VERDICT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant contended that evidence from co-accused which was unavailable at trial was now available on appeal – where appellant did not call co-accused as a witness during trial – where no statement by co-accused indicative of appellant’s innocence put before court – whether the jury would have acquitted appellant if co-accused’s evidence supporting appellant had been before it at trial
Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28, applied
R v George [1980] Qd R 346, applied
COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Jerrard JA that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed for the reasons he gives.
McPHERSON JA: For the reasons given by Jerrard JA, which I have read and with which I agree, this appeal must be dismissed.
JERRARD JA: On 19 August 2004 William David Booth, known as Dave Booth, was convicted by a jury on three charges. These were of entering the dwelling of Wayne Charles Roberts on 17 August 2003 with the intent to commit an indictable offence, robbing Mr Roberts that…

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 Booth

Details

AGLC: R v Booth [2005] QCA 30
Case: [2005] QCA 30
Decision Date: 18/02/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Booth, the appellant sought to appeal against his convictions on three counts of indictable offences. The trial had been conducted before a jury, and the appellant now challenged the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the concept of reasonable doubt. Specifically, the appellant contended that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury that a reasonable doubt was one that they found to be reasonable. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning the nature of reasonable doubt constituted an error that warranted the setting aside of the appellant's convictions. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge's direction was misleading and failed to adhere to the established legal standards for defining reasonable doubt. Conversely, the respondent submitted that the trial judge's direction was a permissible interpretation of the concept of reasonable doubt and did not misdirect the jury in a way that would prejudice the appellant's case.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the trial judge's direction to the jury, although perhaps not the most ideal articulation, did not constitute a misdirection that would vitiate the appellant's convictions. The court held that the trial judge's direction was a permissible expression of the concept of reasonable doubt and did not misdirect the jury in a manner that would prejudice the appellant. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction did not reach the threshold of an error that would warrant the setting aside of the convictions. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against Conviction 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 Booth [2005] QCA 30
PARTIES:	R v BOOTH, William David (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 302 of 2004 DC No 201 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	18 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Jerrard JA Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against Conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant tried by jury on three counts of indictable offences - where trial judge directed the jury that a reasonable doubt is a doubt which they find to be reasonable – whether trial judge erred in directing the jury to this effect
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge refused a request to direct the jury that if they were left in doubt as to where the truth lay, the verdict should be not guilty – where trial judge subsequently gave further directions to the effect that a rejection of part or all of the appellant’s evidence did not necessarily mean that the prosecution had succeeded – whether trial judge erred in giving these directions
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TESTS – WHETHER JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED SAME VERDICT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant contended that evidence from co-accused which was unavailable at trial was now available on appeal – where appellant did not call co-accused as a witness during trial – where no statement by co-accused indicative of appellant’s innocence put before court – whether the jury would have acquitted appellant if co-accused’s evidence supporting appellant had been before it at trial
Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28, applied R v George [1980] Qd R 346, applied
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent