R v Carter - [2003] QCA 515

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Carter [2003] QCA 515

PARTIES:

R
v
CARTER, Stephen Wayne
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 253 of 2003
SC No 587 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – HOMICIDE – CAUSATION – whether an act can be both a significant and a substantial cause of death – whether the question of cause is to be determined applying common sense

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 295, s 296, s 302(1)(a), s 311

Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378, followed

COUNSEL:

C Chowdhury for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] McPHERSON JA: On the morning of 17 March 2000 Gail Marke was found dead in her bedroom in the house at Tewantin where she lived with others, who found her that morning. The body of Patrick Smyth was found with her in the bedroom.

[2] In July 2003 the appellant Stephen Carter was arraigned in the Supreme Court and pleaded not guilty to a charge of having murdered Gail Marke, but guilty to an alternative count of having aided her in killing herself. The Crown did not accept the appellant’s plea to that lesser charge and the trial proceeded on the murder charge in count 1. The jury returned a verdict of guilty to that charge, and Carter was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. This is his appeal against that conviction.

[3] On 24 March 2000, which was a week after the murder, police conducted a recorded interview with the appellant at the Noosa Heads Police Station concerning the deaths of the two deceased. He lived at Tewantin and said he was a drug user. He knew the deceased and Smyth, who had been asking him for about two years to provide them with a “weight” of heroin. A weight is the equivalent of about a gram. They had repeated the request about a fortnight before the events leading to their deaths. On 16 March, they had come round to collect the heroin. Gail had then gone home, and Smyth had accompanied him in the car to Nambour to pick up the heroin the appellant had arranged to supply them with. The appellant and Smyth had injected some of it on the way back to Tewantin. He and Smyth returned to his place, where they slept until 9 p.m., when the appellant took Smyth back to Gail’s house. On arriving there, Smyth said they both wanted him to kill them, but the appellant cautioned them to think it over, and went home. Shortly…

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 Carter

Details

AGLC: R v Carter [2003] QCA 515
Case: [2003] QCA 515
Decision Date: 21 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Carter involved the respondent, Carter, who was convicted of murder and appealed against his conviction. The central issue in the appeal was the causation of death and whether the act committed by Carter was both a significant and a substantial cause of the victim's death. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the question of causation was to be determined applying common sense, rather than strictly adhering to legal principles.

The legal issue at hand was whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury regarding causation. The Court considered whether the trial judge's direction was an accurate reflection of the law, particularly in relation to whether an act can be both a significant and a substantial cause of death. The Court also examined whether the issue of causation should be approached with common sense principles rather than strictly legalistic interpretations.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was consistent with the law on causation. It was held that an act can indeed be both a significant and a substantial cause of death. The Court emphasised that the question of causation should be determined by applying common sense, rather than strictly adhering to legal principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The Court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury on causation was correct, and therefore, the conviction stood.

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 Carter [2003] QCA 515
PARTIES:	R v CARTER, Stephen Wayne (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 253 of 2003 SC No 587 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – HOMICIDE – CAUSATION – whether an act can be both a significant and a substantial cause of death – whether the question of cause is to be determined applying common sense Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 295, s 296, s 302(1)(a), s 311 Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378, followed
COUNSEL:	C Chowdhury for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent