R v Bradley - [2001] VSCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 327 of 1999

THE QUEEN
	v.
RICHARD ALEXANDER BRADLEY

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON and BUCHANAN, JJ.A. and O’BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 November 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 212

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Directions – Evidence – Lies – Removal of own murder weapon to friend’s place on day of killing – No contention based on consciousness of guilt – Whether direction on that subject required – Whether complicity direction required where allegation only that accused was perpetrator – Whether direction required as to alternative liability with co-accused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Pro Bono

ORMISTON, J.A.:

This application for leave to appeal against the applicant’s conviction for murder raised various issues contained in five grounds of appeal, four of which, as has become far too frequent on these applications, were neither the subject of complaint at the trial nor were contained in the original notice of application, those new grounds being added only within a week of the hearing of the application. The applicant, together with his co-accused, Eileen Faye Cox, was found guilty of the murder of Mrs Cox’s husband on or about 27 June 1998 and was sentenced, as was Mrs Cox, to be imprisoned for a term of 17 years, with a minimum of 13 years to be served before becoming eligible for parole.

The evidence in support of the prosecution case was entirely circumstantial. Indeed, there was no obvious motive for the murder, other than a suggestion that it was done for money. Arguably the most significant element in the Crown case was the fact that it was the applicant’s gun, kept in his bedroom drawer, which was used to shoot the deceased. There was also evidence that he sought to mislead the police when first questioned by saying at that time that he did not know how the deceased had been killed and further that he had sought to dispose of the murder weapon quickly by sending it to Bendigo. The Crown case made no direct reliance on lies or any other allegation of consciousness of guilt but it is now said that appropriate directions should have been given on these subjects in any event. The grounds presently relied upon take this form:

“1.The learned trial judge erred in failing to adequately direct the jury that there were bases upon which the co-accused Cox could have been found guilty and the applicant not guilty of murder. (See, in particular, T.835-837.)
2.The learned trial judge erred by failing to adequately direct the jury as to the use that they could make of the alleged lies told by the applicant.
3.The learned trial judge erred by failing to adequately direct the jury on the issue of consciousness of guilt insofar as it related to the applicant’s removal…

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 Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley [2001] VSCA 212
Case: [2001] VSCA 212
Decision Date: 28 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bradley dealt with a criminal matter concerning an allegation of murder. The accused, Bradley, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution argued that Bradley had killed a man, and there was evidence that he had removed the murder weapon to a friend’s place on the day of the killing. The key issues before the court involved the adequacy of the directions given to the jury regarding the consciousness of guilt, the requirement for a direction on complicity, and whether an alternative liability direction should have been given in relation to the co-accused.

The court examined whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury on the subject of consciousness of guilt. Given that the prosecution did not contend that Bradley's actions constituted such a consciousness, the court held that no such direction was necessary. Next, the court considered whether a direction on complicity was warranted, even though the sole allegation was that Bradley was the perpetrator. The court concluded that no complicity direction was required, as the evidence and submissions did not suggest that Bradley acted with any co-conspirator. Finally, the court addressed the issue of whether a direction on alternative liability with the co-accused should have been given. The court determined that no such direction was necessary because the evidence did not support a scenario where Bradley could be held liable for the actions of another.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the trial judge did not err in the directions given to the jury. The court upheld Bradley’s conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Bradley was the perpetrator of the murder. The final orders of the court were to affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on Bradley.

Orders