R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall - [2011] QCA 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall [2011] QCA 265

PARTIES:

R
v
BUTLER, Davin Roy
(appellant)

R
v
LAWTON, Julian Marc
(appellant)

R
v
MARSHALL, Joshua Peter
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 35 of 2011
CA No 34 of 2011
CA No 37 of 2011
DC No 7 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2011

JUDGES:

Muir, Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 35 of 2011:
1. Appeal against convictions dismissed.

In CA No 34 of 2011:
1. Appeal against convictions allowed.
2. Convictions and verdicts set aside.
3. Verdicts of acquittal entered on counts 1, 2 and 3.

In CA No 37 of 2011:
1. Appeal against convictions dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellants were convicted of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant, Butler, claimed the trial judge erred by admitting his record of interview into evidence – where Butler claimed the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to lies in the interview – where Butler claimed that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory – where Butler further claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice owing to the manner in which the Crown Prosecutor’s statements and questions were conveyed – whether the record of interview was properly admitted – whether trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to lies in the interview – whether the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence were of such a nature as to compel a jury to reject the complainant’s testimony – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s expressions would have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Butler’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellants were convicted of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant, Lawton, claimed the verdicts were unreasonable having regard to the evidence – where Lawton alleged the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury with respect to s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – where Lawton further claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice owing to the manner in which the Crown Prosecutor’s statements and questions were conveyed – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s expressions would have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Lawton’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether the appellant’s presence amounted to aiding for the purposes of s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – whether the trial judge failed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QCA 265
Decision Date: 4 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall involves appeals against convictions for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The appellants, Butler, Lawton and Marshall, contested their convictions on various grounds, including the admission of evidence, jury directions and the potential impact of statements made by the Crown Prosecutor. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting Butler's record of interview and whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding the lies in the interview. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were significant enough to render the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellants also argued that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found that there were errors in the trial process that warranted intervention. With respect to Butler, the court held that the trial judge erred in admitting the record of interview and failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to the lies in the interview. Additionally, the court found that the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were of such a nature as to compel a jury to reject the complainant's testimony. As for Lawton, the court found that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury with respect to section 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and that the appellant's presence did not amount to aiding for the purposes of this section. The court also found that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Lawton's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, regarding Marshall, the court found that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury and that the verdicts were unreasonable having regard to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in CA No 34 of 2011 and set aside the convictions and verdicts. Verdicts of acquittal were entered on counts 1, 2 and 3. The appeals in CA No 35 of 2011 and CA No 37 of 2011 were dismissed, with the appeal against convictions being dismissed in both cases. The outcome of this case highlights the importance of proper jury directions and the potential impact of prosecutorial statements on the jury's decision-making process.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 35 of 2011:

1. Appeal against convictions dismissed.

In CA No 34 of 2011:

1. Appeal against convictions allowed.

2. Convictions and verdicts set aside.

3. Verdicts of acquittal entered on counts 1, 2 and 3.

In CA No 37 of 2011:

1. Appeal against convictions 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 Butler & Lawton & Marshall [2011] QCA 265
PARTIES:	R v BUTLER, Davin Roy (appellant) R v LAWTON, Julian Marc (appellant) R v MARSHALL, Joshua Peter (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 35 of 2011 CA No 34 of 2011 CA No 37 of 2011 DC No 7 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2011
JUDGES:	Muir, Fraser and Chesterman JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	In CA No 35 of 2011: 1. Appeal against convictions dismissed. In CA No 34 of 2011: 1. Appeal against convictions allowed. 2. Convictions and verdicts set aside. 3. Verdicts of acquittal entered on counts 1, 2 and 3. In CA No 37 of 2011: 1. Appeal against convictions dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellants were convicted of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant, Butler, claimed the trial judge erred by admitting his record of interview into evidence – where Butler claimed the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to lies in the interview – where Butler claimed that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory – where Butler further claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice owing to the manner in which the Crown Prosecutor’s statements and questions were conveyed – whether the record of interview was properly admitted – whether trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to lies in the interview – whether the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence were of such a nature as to compel a jury to reject the complainant’s testimony – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s expressions would have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Butler’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellants were convicted of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant, Lawton, claimed the verdicts were unreasonable having regard to the evidence – where Lawton alleged the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury with respect to s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – where Lawton further claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice owing to the manner in which the Crown Prosecutor’s statements and questions were conveyed – whether the Crown Prosecutor’s expressions would have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Lawton’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether the appellant’s presence amounted to aiding for the purposes of s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – whether the trial judge failed…