R v Burrows - [2003] VSCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 4 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
LAWSON JOHN BURROWS

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	SALE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 August 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 130

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Post-offence conduct in flight and disposal of murder weapon by applicant – Relied on by prosecution in proof of guilt – Jury properly directed by trial judge – Whether defence case put by judge to jury – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W.H. Morgan-Payler, Q.C. and Ms S.E. Pullen	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr G.J. Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, Lawson John Burrows, pleaded not guilty in the Supreme Court at Sale on 8 October 2001 to a presentment which alleged that he murdered Christopher Shane Winward at Mallacoota on 12 August 2000. After a trial lasting some six days, on 18 October the jury returned a verdict of guilty to murder. A plea was later heard and on 21 December the judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for 18 years and fixed a non-parole period of 14 years. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds that –

1.The judge erred in his direction to the jury in relation to flight and the disposal of the shotgun.
2.The judge erred in relation to the disputed fact of the journey taken by the applicant in his car shortly before the shooting in that
(a)       he failed to relate the facts to the issues; and
(b)      he failed to relate the law to the facts.
3.The verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the cumulative effect of the following:
(a)       the errors identified in grounds 1 and 2;
(c)       cross-examination of the applicant by the trial judge;
(d)the absence of any direction by the trial judge to the effect that it is the answer rather than the question which is the evidence.

The Crown case was as follows. Both Burrows and Winward had worked at the Abalone Fishery Cooperative from time to time over a number of years. They were known to each other but not particularly friendly. On Friday 11 August 2000, many of the residents of Mallacoota attended the funeral of a local woman. After the funeral a wake was held at the “Mud Brick Pavilion and Shire Office” and thereafter a number of townspeople went to the Mallacoota Hotel in Maurice Avenue. There was a band and a substantial crowd, including both Burrows and Winward, in the hotel.

Winward was in a happy and sociable mood, mixing with friends and spending time with his girlfriend, Claire Trebilco, who worked behind the bar at the hotel. Both Burrows and Winward had a considerable quantity to drink during the course of the evening. Burrows was…

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 Burrows

Details

AGLC: R. v. Burrows [2003] VSCA 130
Case: [2003] VSCA 130
Decision Date: 21 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Burrows involved the applicant, Burrows, who was convicted of murder. The dispute centred on the manner in which the prosecution presented evidence of the applicant's post-offence conduct, specifically the disposal of the murder weapon, to prove his guilt. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge appropriately directed the jury regarding the significance of this conduct and whether the defence's arguments were adequately conveyed to the jury.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to rely on the applicant's disposal of the murder weapon as evidence of guilt and whether the judge properly directed the jury on the significance of this conduct in relation to the applicant's defence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defence's case was appropriately put to the jury, ensuring that the applicant's version of events was fairly represented and that the jury could properly assess the evidence in light of the defence arguments.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in allowing the prosecution to rely on the disposal of the murder weapon, as it was relevant to the applicant's guilt. The judge adequately directed the jury on the significance of this conduct, ensuring that the evidence was considered within the context of the overall case. Furthermore, the court determined that the defence's case was appropriately put to the jury, with all relevant arguments and evidence being presented for consideration. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal, upholding the conviction.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the application, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The judges found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's handling of the case, including the directions given to the jury and the presentation of the defence case.

Orders