R v Clark - [2013] QCA 333

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Clark [2013] QCA 333

PARTIES:

R
v
CLARK, Peter Charles
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 234 of 2012
SC No 702 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter – where the plea of guilty was not accepted by the prosecution – where the appellant was convicted of murder after a six day trial – where the appellant had a dispute with his wife and struck and stabbed her numerous times with a golf club – where counsel for the appellant submitted that he was provoked – where the appellant in person submitted that the trial was not a fair one, that his counsel failed to cross examine witnesses in accordance with his instructions and that certain witnesses were not brought forward – whether the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the claimed provocative acts could not have caused an ordinary person to lose control and act as the defendant acted

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304, reprint 7M
Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Qld), s 5

Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, followed
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Pollock v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233; [2010] HCA 35, cited
Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, cited

COUNSEL:

A Hoare for the appellant (pro bono)
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with McMeekin J’s reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by McMeekin J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

McMEEKIN J: The appellant, Peter Charles Clark, was arraigned on 16 August 2012 on the charge of murdering his wife at Coomera on 12 October 2010. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The guilty plea was not accepted by the prosecution. He was convicted of murder on 23 August 2012 after a six day jury trial. He has appealed against his conviction. The sole ground of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal is:

“The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”.

Upon…

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 Clark

Details

AGLC: R v Clark [2013] QCA 333
Case: [2013] QCA 333
Decision Date: 8 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clark, the appellant faced charges stemming from a violent altercation with his wife, culminating in her death. The appellant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, a plea which was rejected by the prosecution. After a six-day trial, the jury found the appellant guilty of murder. The appellant subsequently lodged an appeal against the conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. Central to the appeal was the contention that the appellant was provoked by his wife's actions, which allegedly led to his loss of control and the fatal attack.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported considering the evidence presented. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it was open to the jury to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged provocative acts could not have caused an ordinary person to lose control and respond as the appellant did. The court had to weigh the appellant's arguments regarding the fairness of the trial, the adequacy of his legal representation, and the failure to call certain witnesses against the evidence and the jury's findings.

In dismissing the appeal, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the submissions made by both parties. It found that the jury's conclusion was supported by the evidence and that the appellant's arguments about provocation and the fairness of the trial did not undermine the verdict. The court held that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions were not the result of a loss of self-control due to provocation. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction. This outcome meant that the appellant's conviction for murder, as determined by the jury, was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of the jury's role in evaluating the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 Clark [2013] QCA 333
PARTIES:	R v CLARK, Peter Charles (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 234 of 2012 SC No 702 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter – where the plea of guilty was not accepted by the prosecution – where the appellant was convicted of murder after a six day trial – where the appellant had a dispute with his wife and struck and stabbed her numerous times with a golf club – where counsel for the appellant submitted that he was provoked – where the appellant in person submitted that the trial was not a fair one, that his counsel failed to cross examine witnesses in accordance with his instructions and that certain witnesses were not brought forward – whether the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the claimed provocative acts could not have caused an ordinary person to lose control and act as the defendant acted Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304, reprint 7M Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Qld), s 5 Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, followed MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited Pollock v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233; [2010] HCA 35, cited Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, cited
COUNSEL:	A Hoare for the appellant (pro bono) M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent