Legal Research
Cases
R v Butler

R v Butler

Case [2006] QCA 51 3 March 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Butler [2006] QCA 51

PARTIES:

R
v
BUTLER, Leonard Bruce
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 248 of 2005
SC No 19 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2006

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal allowed1.

Convictions for attempted murder set aside2.

Retrial ordered of the counts of attempted murder3.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where appellant drove vehicle towards and onto police vehicle - where appellant gave evidence that he drove without intention to kill - where appellant gave evidence that he was trying to commit suicide - whether the jury could, acting reasonably, have come to the view that the appellant's actions, objectively considered, were informed by an intention to kill

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where appellant drove vehicle towards and onto police vehicle - where appellant gave evidence that he drove without intention to kill - where appellant gave evidence that he was trying to commit suicide - where learned trial judge stated in summing-up that intention of the appellant could "only be inferred from surrounding circumstances" - whether it is possible to exclude the possibility that the jury did not appreciate that the appellant's evidence was available as a basis for entertaining a reasonable doubt as to intention

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where evidence was admitted of similar facts - where there was no stringent warning given to the jury as to the use of similar facts - whether there was a risk of prejudice to the appellant from the use of propensity reasoning which should have been addressed by the learned trial judge

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited
Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498, considered
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495, considered
R v K [1997] 1 Qd R 383, applied
R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA Nos 21, 26, 115, 122 of 2002, 6 September 2002, applied
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; M50 of 2005, 15 December 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

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 Butler

Details

AGLC: R v Butler [2006] QCA 51
Case: [2006] QCA 51
Decision Date: 3 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Butler, the appellant, Butler, appealed against his convictions for attempting to murder two police officers. The appellant was found guilty by a jury after driving his vehicle towards and onto a police vehicle. Butler gave evidence that he drove without the intention to kill and that he was actually trying to commit suicide. The appeal centred on whether the jury could, acting reasonably, have come to the view that Butler's actions, objectively considered, were informed by an intention to kill. Additionally, the appeal examined whether there was a misdirection or non-direction in the summing up of the learned trial judge and whether the judge adequately considered the use of similar fact evidence without a stringent warning to the jury.

The primary legal issues in the appeal were whether the jury could reasonably have concluded that Butler intended to kill the police officers and whether there was a misdirection in the summing up by the learned trial judge. The appeal also considered whether the judge adequately addressed the risk of prejudice to the appellant from the use of propensity reasoning in the context of similar fact evidence. The court had to assess if the summing up was such that the jury might not have appreciated that Butler's evidence could form a basis for reasonable doubt as to his intention.

The court found that the jury could reasonably have concluded that Butler intended to kill the police officers, thus the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable. However, the court identified a misdirection in the summing up by the learned trial judge. The judge stated that Butler's intention could "only be inferred from the surrounding circumstances," which might have excluded the possibility that the jury appreciated that Butler's evidence could entertain a reasonable doubt as to intention. Additionally, the court found that the learned trial judge did not adequately address the risk of prejudice from the use of similar fact evidence without a stringent warning to the jury. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions for attempted murder should be set aside, and a retrial ordered on the counts of attempted murder.

The court's final order was that the appeal was allowed, the convictions for attempted murder were set aside, and a retrial was ordered on the counts of attempted murder. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed and that the risk of prejudice from similar fact evidence is adequately managed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed1.

Convictions for attempted murder set aside2.

Retrial ordered of the counts of attempted murder3.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Butler [2006] QCA 51

Most Recent Citation

R v Reid [2006] QCA 202

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Gathercole
[2016] QCA 336 Para 26

…uried in a Christian cemetery. Some jurors may still regard suicide or attempted suicide as sinful or morally culpable. [79]See, eg, R v Butler [2006] QCA 51.…
R v Simpson
[2013] QCA 250 Para 1

…enced such that there is a sufficient possibility that an innocent person has been convicted.[3] [1] M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493, 495. [2][2006] QCA 51 at [26]. [3]See M v The Queen at 494.…
R v David
[2006] QCA 206 Para 1

…ciate that the appellant's evidence was available as a basis for entertaining a reasonable doubt as to whether [he] acted with intent to kill".[4] [3][2006] QCA 51; CA No 248 of 2005, 3 March 2006 esp at [30] - [34]. [4]Cf R v Butler [2006] QCA 51; CA No 248 of 2005, 3 March 2006 at [40].…
R v Reid
[2006] QCA 202

…czynski v The Queen (1989) 2 WAR 316, cited Parker v The Queen (1962) 111 CLR 610, cited R v Butler [2006] QCA 51; CA No 248 of 2005, 3 March 2006, distinguished R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, cited R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464, cited, distinguished R v GE Nelson , CA No 324 of 1986, 3 February 1987, unreported…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Weiss v The Queen
[2005] HCA 81 Para 1

…om a crucial witness upon a vital issue. As a result, the convictions on the counts of attempted murder should be quashed and a new trial ordered. [7][2005] HCA 81 at [58].…
R v Huebner; R v Maher
[2004] QCA 98 Para 1

…in this way was very real. [10]See also Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 at 157; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 at 264; R v Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98 at [33] and [111]. See also R v Self [2001] QCA 338 at [30] - [40].…
R v Palmer & Hite
[2002] QCA 346 Para 1

…that party's evidence about his own state of mind. In our respectful opinion, the appellant's submission must be accepted.[6] [6]Cf R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346 at [5] - [6].…
R v Self
[2001] QCA 338 Para 1

…Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 at 157; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 at 264; R v Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98 at [33] and [111]. See also R v Self [2001] QCA 338 at [30] - [40].…
KRM v The Queen
[2001] HCA 11 Para 1

…his regard, the danger that the jury would reason in this way was very real. [10]See also Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 at 157; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 at 264; R v Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98 at [33] and [111]. See also R v Self [2001] QCA 338 at [30] - [40].…
Gipp v The Queen
[1998] HCATrans 212 Para 1

…In the absence of a stringent warning in this regard, the danger that the jury would reason in this way was very real. [10]See also Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 at 157; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 at 264; R v Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98 at [33] and [111]. See also R v Self [2001] QCA 338 at [30] -…
BRS v The Queen
[1997] HCA 47

…ant from the use of propensity reasoning which should have been addressed by the learned trial judge Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498, considered Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495, considered R v K [1997] 1 Qd R 383, applied R v Palmer & Hite…
Cutter v The Queen
[1997] HCA 7 Para 1

…is regard the appellant relies on the decisions of the High Court in Knight v The Queen [1] and Cutter v R .[2] [1](1992) 175 CLR 495 at 505, 509. [2](1997) 143 ALR 498 at 503, 504.…
Knight v The Queen
[1992] HCA 56

…essed by the learned trial judge Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498, considered Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495, considered R v K [1997] 1 Qd R 383, applied R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA Nos 21, 26, 115, 122 of 2002, 6 September 2002, applied…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Butler [2006] QCA 51
PARTIES:	R v BUTLER, Leonard Bruce (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 248 of 2005 SC No 19 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	3 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2006
JUDGES:	Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal allowed1. Convictions for attempted murder set aside2. Retrial ordered of the counts of attempted murder3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where appellant drove vehicle towards and onto police vehicle - where appellant gave evidence that he drove without intention to kill - where appellant gave evidence that he was trying to commit suicide - whether the jury could, acting reasonably, have come to the view that the appellant's actions, objectively considered, were informed by an intention to kill CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where appellant drove vehicle towards and onto police vehicle - where appellant gave evidence that he drove without intention to kill - where appellant gave evidence that he was trying to commit suicide - where learned trial judge stated in summing-up that intention of the appellant could "only be inferred from surrounding circumstances" - whether it is possible to exclude the possibility that the jury did not appreciate that the appellant's evidence was available as a basis for entertaining a reasonable doubt as to intention CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted by jury of attempting to murder two police officers - where evidence was admitted of similar facts - where there was no stringent warning given to the jury as to the use of similar facts - whether there was a risk of prejudice to the appellant from the use of propensity reasoning which should have been addressed by the learned trial judge Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498, considered Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495, considered R v K [1997] 1 Qd R 383, applied R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA Nos 21, 26, 115, 122 of 2002, 6 September 2002, applied Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; M50 of 2005, 15 December 2005, cited
COUNSEL: