R v Chenery - [2011] QCA 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chenery [2011] QCA 271

PARTIES:

R
v
CHENERY, Jamie David
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 111 of 2010
SC No 581 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA, and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder after a trial – where the jury rejected the partial defence of diminished responsibility – where the appellant contended that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because contrary to the medical opinion offered in the trial – whether the jury’s decision not to acquit the appellant of murder on account of diminished responsibility was reasonably open on the evidence

Criminal CodeAct 1899 (Qld), s 304A(1), s 668E

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v DAY[2010] QCA 369, cited
R v Sheppard[2005] QCA 38, cited

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the appellant
A W Moynihan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by White JA.

WHITE JA: The appellant was convicted of murder after a trial in the Supreme Court at Townsville. He had advanced a partial defence of diminished responsibility which the jury rejected. He contends that “the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory”[1] because the verdict is said to be contrary to the medical opinion offered in the trial. The issue for the appeal is whether it was open to the jury on the whole of the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder.[2]
[1]The statutory test in s 668E of the Criminal Code is “unreasonable”; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 620, [2002] HCA 53 at [46]; R v Sheppard [2005] QCA 38 at [34]-[35].
[2]M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, [1994] HCA 63.

Background

The deceased, Vanora Leigh Miller, died in hospital in Townsville on 29 September 2008 as a result of sustaining serious head trauma inflicted on her by the appellant on the evening of 27 September 2008. She was a 35 year old married woman, separated from her husband with two young daughters who lived with their father in Mackay. At the time of her death she was employed as a concrete truck driver in Townsville.

In February 2008 the deceased returned to Townsville to live from Mackay and rented a…

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 Chenery

Details

AGLC: R v Chenery [2011] QCA 271
Case: [2011] QCA 271
Decision Date: 7 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chenery, was convicted of murder by a jury following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the appeal was whether the jury's decision to reject the partial defence of diminished responsibility was reasonable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because it contradicted the medical opinion offered during the trial. The appeal required the Court to determine whether the jury's conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the defence of diminished responsibility was a reasonable one, given the evidence.

The Court of Appeal considered the extent to which the evidence supported the jury's decision. The court noted that the jury was entitled to consider all the evidence and was not bound by any expert opinion. The medical evidence provided during the trial was not definitive, and the jury was free to weigh it as they saw fit. The court held that the jury's decision not to acquit the appellant of murder based on diminished responsibility was a reasonable one, given the evidence presented. The Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable when considering the evidence as a whole.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the conviction for murder and found that the jury's decision to reject the partial defence of diminished responsibility was reasonably open on the evidence. The orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence remain in place.

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.

CITATION:	R v Chenery [2011] QCA 271
PARTIES:	R v CHENERY, Jamie David (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 111 of 2010 SC No 581 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA, and Martin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder after a trial – where the jury rejected the partial defence of diminished responsibility – where the appellant contended that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because contrary to the medical opinion offered in the trial – whether the jury’s decision not to acquit the appellant of murder on account of diminished responsibility was reasonably open on the evidence Criminal CodeAct 1899 (Qld), s 304A(1), s 668E M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v DAY[2010] QCA 369, cited R v Sheppard[2005] QCA 38, cited
COUNSEL:	C Reid for the appellant A W Moynihan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent