SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Butler [2001] QCA 385 PARTIES: R
v
BUTLER, Wayne Edward
(appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 51 of 2001
SC No 511 of 1998DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 14 September 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 31 July 2001 JUDGES: Davies and Thomas JJA and Philippides J
Judgment of the CourtORDER: Appeal dismissed CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS - IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - OTHER CASES - where sole evidence against accused, apart from opportunity, was DNA evidence - appellant convicted at trial - whether DNA evidence reliable - whether reasonable possibility that contamination of sample occurred - DNA analysis of sample occurred over 13 years after commission of offence - whether degradation of sample was a reasonable possibility - where prior ABO test yielded an inconsistent result - discussion of expert evidence on DNA and ABO testing
COUNSEL: P J Callaghan for appellant
R G Martin for respondentSOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent
THE COURT: On 13 February this year the appellant was convicted of murdering Celia Natasha Douty probably on 1 September 1983. He appeals against that conviction on two grounds. The first is that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The second is that the learned trial judge erred in failing to uphold the submission that there was no case to answer.
Ms Douty was murdered when she was apparently sunbaking on a beach at Brampton Island. Her body was discovered in some undergrowth in a place called Dinghy Bay, unclothed but covered with a red towel. She had suffered extensive head injuries. Her clothes and personal possessions, including a handbag, were missing and were never found.
The appellant had visited the Island on a day trip from Mackay with his wife on the day on which Ms Douty was probably murdered. He left his wife for a period of about four hours telling her that he was going jogging or walking around the beach, around the island. When he returned to his wife he showed no signs of distress and there were no readily apparent marks or blood stains on him or on his clothing.
The red towel was found to have both blood stains and semen stains on it. The semen stains were located in six different places on the towel.
The sole evidence on which the appellant was convicted, apart from the fact that he had an opportunity to kill the deceased, was DNA evidence that it was his semen that was found on the red towel. The appellant did not give evidence.
The DNA tests, which it was said proved this, were done in February 1997. A DNA test of the appellant's blood sample on 6 February yielded a result; and a DNA…
Continue reading R v Butler
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Butler [2001] QCA 385
- Case
- [2001] QCA 385
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court undertook a thorough analysis of the expert evidence presented regarding the DNA and ABO testing. It considered the possibility of contamination and degradation of the sample, as well as the inconsistencies in the prior ABO test. The court ultimately concluded that the DNA evidence was reliable and that there was no reasonable possibility of contamination or degradation that would undermine the evidence. The court found that the appellant's conviction was supported by the DNA evidence, which was consistent with the presence of the appellant at the crime scene.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction. The court held that the DNA evidence was reliable and that any concerns about contamination or degradation were insufficient to undermine the evidence. The court was satisfied that the DNA evidence, combined with the opportunity of the appellant, was sufficient to support the conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.