R v Carmody - [2003] QCA 482

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Carmody [2003] QCA 482

PARTIES:

R
v
CARMODY, Wayne David
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 364 of 2002
SC No 289 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Wilson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL - where appellant and another convicted of murder - where prosecution case circumstantial - where appellant present at scene - where co-accused not sighted at murder scene - whether verdict unreasonable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MATTERS CONNECTED WITH CONDUCT OF DEFENCE - LEGAL REPRESENTATION - GENERALLY - where appellant complained about manner in which counsel conducted his case at trial - where appellant's de facto gave evidence adverse to the appellant - where appellant's de facto signed written statement to the effect that the statements she gave to police were made under duress - where appellant's counsel aware of this written statement prior to trial - where counsel did not cross-examine appellant's de facto on her statement - whether appellant misrepresented at trial

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - JOINT TRIAL OF SEPARATE PERSONS - where appellant and another jointly tried for murder - where trial judge directed jury during summing up that conversation between co-accused and police was not admissible against appellant - where no other evidence admissible only against co-accused - whether trial judge adequately directed the jury in relation to evidence against each co-accused

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where trial judge directed the jury that verdict of manslaughter against appellant open notwithstanding verdict of murder against co-accused - where trial judge directed jury that verdict of manslaughter only open in a technical sense - whether trial judge misdirected the jury on this point

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 302(1)(b)

COUNSEL:

Appellant appeared on his own behalf
C W Heaton for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

THE COURT: As appears from what we have said in our judgment dismissing an appeal by Brett Edward Blatch, Carmody appeals against conviction for the same murder. We shall not repeat any of the factual matters contained in our reasons in Blatch which we adopt for the purpose of these reasons. It is plain that the jury did not conclude that the appellant had shot Davies. The evidence was inconsistent with that…

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 Carmody

Details

AGLC: R v Carmody [2003] QCA 482
Case: [2003] QCA 482
Decision Date: 7 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Carmody, who had been convicted of murder alongside another individual. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the conviction. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and insupportable given the circumstantial nature of the evidence against him, especially considering that his co-accused was not seen at the scene of the crime. Additionally, Carmody contended that his trial counsel's performance was deficient as they did not cross-examine his de facto partner despite being aware of a written statement she made under duress. Furthermore, Carmody claimed that the trial judge misdirected the jury, particularly regarding the admissibility of conversations between the co-accused and the police and the potential for a manslaughter verdict despite the murder conviction of his co-accused.

The court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, given its circumstantial nature, and whether the trial counsel's failure to cross-examine the de facto partner constituted a significant error. Additionally, the court assessed the trial judge's directions to the jury, focusing on whether these directions were adequate and whether they may have inadvertently misled the jury, particularly in relation to the admissibility of certain evidence and the potential for a manslaughter verdict. The court also examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented.

The court concluded that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdict against Carmody. The court found no significant deficiency in the trial counsel's performance that would warrant a new trial. Additionally, the court determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury, while not perfect, were not so flawed as to necessitate a new trial. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable and dismissed the appeal against the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Carmody [2003] QCA 482
PARTIES:	R v CARMODY, Wayne David (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 364 of 2002 SC No 289 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 October 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Wilson J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL - where appellant and another convicted of murder - where prosecution case circumstantial - where appellant present at scene - where co-accused not sighted at murder scene - whether verdict unreasonable having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MATTERS CONNECTED WITH CONDUCT OF DEFENCE - LEGAL REPRESENTATION - GENERALLY - where appellant complained about manner in which counsel conducted his case at trial - where appellant's de facto gave evidence adverse to the appellant - where appellant's de facto signed written statement to the effect that the statements she gave to police were made under duress - where appellant's counsel aware of this written statement prior to trial - where counsel did not cross-examine appellant's de facto on her statement - whether appellant misrepresented at trial CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - JOINT TRIAL OF SEPARATE PERSONS - where appellant and another jointly tried for murder - where trial judge directed jury during summing up that conversation between co-accused and police was not admissible against appellant - where no other evidence admissible only against co-accused - whether trial judge adequately directed the jury in relation to evidence against each co-accused CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where trial judge directed the jury that verdict of manslaughter against appellant open notwithstanding verdict of murder against co-accused - where trial judge directed jury that verdict of manslaughter only open in a technical sense - whether trial judge misdirected the jury on this point Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 302(1)(b)
COUNSEL:	Appellant appeared on his own behalf C W Heaton for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent