R v Craig - [2016] QCA 166

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Craig [2016] QCA 166

PARTIES:

R
v
CRAIG, Ronald Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 86 of 2014
SC No 385 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 April 2014

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was convicted of murder, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where it is alleged that the appellant was not adequately advised at trial as to whether he would be cross-examined on his criminal history which included a prior conviction for unlawful killing in the Northern Territory – where it is alleged that the legal advice given, namely, that if the appellant testified in order to advance defences of self-defence or provocation, it was likely that he would be cross-examined on his criminal history, was incorrect – where it is alleged that the way the advice was conveyed effectively deprived him of the option of giving evidence – whether there was error in defence counsel’s advice – whether, if error exists, a substantial miscarriage of justice was occasioned

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION– EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of murder, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where it is alleged that the learned trial judge ought to have directed the jury with respect to a possibility that some of the 40 identifiable injuries to the deceased were not recent and could not be used as evidence of intent – where, separately, it is alleged that the learned trial judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury concerning the alleged act of domestic violence committed by the appellant on the deceased months prior to the killing and in collectively referring to that and stealing from the deceased’s bank account via an ATM as ‘discreditable conduct’– where, with respect to this alleged error, it is submitted that the learned trial judge failed to give the proper propensity direction required for the evidence of the SMS messages between the appellant and the deceased admitted under s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where, separately, it is alleged that the jury were left to consider the defence of provocation ‘in a vacuum’, that is, the directions with respect to provocation were unbalanced, not referring to relevant points in favour of the appellant – whether the directions given with respect to the recent appearance of the deceased’s injuries and to domestic violence were sufficient – whether the directions referring to ‘discreditable conduct’ were deficient – whether there was incompleteness in the directions on…

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 Craig

Details

AGLC: R v Craig [2016] QCA 166
Case: [2016] QCA 166
Decision Date: 21 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of murder following a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The primary grounds of appeal were the adequacy of the legal advice provided to the appellant and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury. The appellant's legal representation allegedly failed to properly advise him about the implications of testifying, specifically the likelihood of being cross-examined on his criminal history. Additionally, it was argued that the trial judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury on several critical issues, including the recency of some of the deceased's injuries, the nature of prior domestic violence, and the adequacy of the directions on the defence of provocation.

The court considered whether the appellant's legal counsel provided incorrect advice, which may have deprived him of the option to testify, thereby resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also examined whether the trial judge's directions were adequate, particularly in relation to the evidence of the deceased's injuries, the alleged act of domestic violence, and the concept of discreditable conduct. The court assessed if these directions were sufficient to allow the jury to properly evaluate the evidence and whether any omissions or misdirections impacted the fairness of the trial.

After a thorough review, the court determined that there was no error in the advice given by the appellant's legal counsel and that the trial judge's directions were sufficient. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that any alleged errors led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

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 Craig [2016] QCA 166
PARTIES:	R v CRAIG, Ronald Michael (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 86 of 2014 SC No 385 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 April 2014
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Morrison JJA 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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was convicted of murder, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where it is alleged that the appellant was not adequately advised at trial as to whether he would be cross-examined on his criminal history which included a prior conviction for unlawful killing in the Northern Territory – where it is alleged that the legal advice given, namely, that if the appellant testified in order to advance defences of self-defence or provocation, it was likely that he would be cross-examined on his criminal history, was incorrect – where it is alleged that the way the advice was conveyed effectively deprived him of the option of giving evidence – whether there was error in defence counsel’s advice – whether, if error exists, a substantial miscarriage of justice was occasioned CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION– EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of murder, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where it is alleged that the learned trial judge ought to have directed the jury with respect to a possibility that some of the 40 identifiable injuries to the deceased were not recent and could not be used as evidence of intent – where, separately, it is alleged that the learned trial judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury concerning the alleged act of domestic violence committed by the appellant on the deceased months prior to the killing and in collectively referring to that and stealing from the deceased’s bank account via an ATM as ‘discreditable conduct’– where, with respect to this alleged error, it is submitted that the learned trial judge failed to give the proper propensity direction required for the evidence of the SMS messages between the appellant and the deceased admitted under s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where, separately, it is alleged that the jury were left to consider the defence of provocation ‘in a vacuum’, that is, the directions with respect to provocation were unbalanced, not referring to relevant points in favour of the appellant – whether the directions given with respect to the recent appearance of the deceased’s injuries and to domestic violence were sufficient – whether the directions referring to ‘discreditable conduct’ were deficient – whether there was incompleteness in the directions on…