R v Cannon - [1997] QCA 334

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 334
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 171 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Cannon]

THE QUEEN

ERROL JEFFREY CANNON

Appellant

Macrossan CJ
Pincus JA
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 26 September 1997

Joint reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and Byrne J; separate reasons of Pincus

JA concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - diminished responsibility - whether open to the jury to reject a defence of diminished responsibility.
Counsel:	Mr A. Rafter for the appellant Mrs L. Clare for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent Hearing Date:	23 July 1997

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BYRNE J

Judgment delivered 26 September 1997

This appeal against a conviction for murder raises the question whether it was open to the jury to reject a defence of diminished responsibility.

Shortly before 2.30 a.m. on 2 November 1995, at a house on Palm Island occupied by the Wilson family, Freddie Bramwell was stabbed once through the heart as he slept. A blood-stained knife was found on the floor of the room. A neighbour saw the appellant flee the scene.

The appellant declined to participate in an interview when approached by the police that day. Forty-eight days later, he went to the local police station. There, in a recorded interview, he confessed to the killing. He spoke of walking into the house when all were asleep, taking a butcher's knife from the kitchen sink, and going to the bedroom where he expected to find his victim. There was, he asserted, sufficient light to see that the person lying asleep in the bed was Freddie Bramwell. He stabbed his victim in the chest. He gave a reason for the stabbing: a couple of weeks earlier he had heard a rumour that Freddie Bramwell and his brother, Ray, had "molested" the appellant while he was asleep.

On the night of the killing, the appellant had been one of a group of men drinking and playing darts on the front porch of the Wilson house. A fight broke out between Ray Bramwell and the appellant. Freddie helped to break it up. According to Ray, he was threatened by the appellant after his brother's intervention. Afterwards, as he told the jury, the appellant called out, "I'll go home to my place to get a knife for you". Francis Wilson heard the argument. She thought the appellant called out that he was going to stab Ray. Janice Hubby, who was next door, remembered that the appellant left the porch soon after he and Ray Bramwell had stopped fighting. She saw him standing on the road, swearing and making some reference to Ray. Arthur Wilson was present for the darts game. He heard the appellant call out after he had been told to go home by Eileen Wilson, "I'll get you when you go to sleep. I'll kill you".…

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 Cannon

Details

AGLC: R v Cannon [1997] QCA 334
Case: [1997] QCA 334
Decision Date: 26/09/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cannon involved the defendant, who was convicted of the murder of his wife. The defendant raised a defence of diminished responsibility, which was rejected by the jury. The case came before the court for appeal on the grounds that the jury should not have been left to determine the validity of the defence of diminished responsibility.

The legal issue before the court was whether it is appropriate for a jury to decide on the existence of diminished responsibility in a murder case. The court was required to consider the role of the jury in determining the validity of a defence, and whether the judge should provide more guidance to the jury on this matter.

The court found that the jury should not be left to decide on the existence of diminished responsibility without proper guidance from the judge. The court held that the judge has a duty to provide clear instructions to the jury on the criteria for diminished responsibility, and to ensure that the jury understands the defence and its implications. The court held that the failure to provide such guidance may result in an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court ordered a retrial, with specific directions to the jury on the issue of diminished responsibility.

Orders