R v Crothers

Case [2010] QCA 334

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crothers & Ors [2010] QCA 334

PARTIES:

R
v
MICHAEL CROTHERS
DAVID ROBERT HEATHCOTE
YVONNE JEAN HEATHCOTE
COLIN ROBERT ROGERS
(appellants)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 262 of 2009
CA No 265 of 2009
CA No 274 of 2009
CA No 277 of 2009
SC No 337 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 and 23 July 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Douglas J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   In respect of each appellant, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2.   In respect of the appellant Crothers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused.

3.   In respect of the appellant Rogers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused.  The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

4.   In respect of the appellant Yvonne Heathcote, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where appellants were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of John Hoghes – where there was evidence that appellant Yvonne Heathcote was the instigator of a plan to seriously injure Matthew Hoghes, the victim's son – where appellants David Heathcote, Crothers and Rogers drove to the residence of Matthew Hoghes – where John Hoghes arrived to defend his son – where Crothers shot and killed John Hoghes – where appellant David Heathcote then seriously assaulted Matthew Hoghes – where appellants David Heathcote, Crothers and Rogers committed aggravated burglaries at the residences of Matthew Hoghes and Michelle Hoghes, the victim's wife – where appellants Yvonne Heathcote, David Heathcote and Rogers were convicted on the basis that they had formed a common intention to seriously injure Matthew Hoghes and the murder of John Hoghes was a probable consequence of that alleged purpose – whether there was sufficient evidence to support the murder convictions – whether the verdicts were unreasonable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where there was evidence of a telephone conversation between appellant Yvonne Heathcote and little John Hoghes in which she told him that appellant David Heathcote and Nathan Wells were coming to assault Matthew Hoghes – where it was intended Matthew Hoghes would be assaulted with a metal club – where victim bystander was killed with a gun – whether the jury had to be satisfied of the telephone conversation beyond reasonable doubt – whether judge misdirected the jury in describing the conversation as direct evidence of appellant Yvonne Heathcote's implication in the plan to seriously injure Matthew Hoghes – whether trial judge adequately instructed jury on the application of s 8 to the facts – whether trial judge erred in not directing the jury to decide the details…

Continue reading R v Crothers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crothers [2010] QCA 334
Case
[2010] QCA 334
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crothers involved the appeal of the convictions and sentences of the appellants, David Heathcote, Crothers, Rogers, and Yvonne Heathcote, who were jointly tried and convicted for the murder of John Hoghes, as well as related offences. The appellants challenged the reasonableness of their convictions and the adequacy of the trial process. The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to support the murder convictions, whether there were misdirections or non-directions by the trial judge, and whether there were irregularities that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge erred in declining to declare a mistrial or in refusing applications for separate trials.

The court found that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were clear and comprehensive, particularly concerning the application of section 8 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to common intention and probable consequences. The judge had adequately explained the law and its application to the facts of the case. The court dismissed the argument that the jury's independent investigation, which involved a juror using a map to better understand the evidence, constituted a mistrial. The court also rejected the claims that the appellants' self-representation or the lack of legal representation amounted to a miscarriage of justice, finding that the trial judge ensured all defendants had a fair trial. Additionally, the court ruled that the refusal to allow further evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence would not likely have changed the outcome of the trial.

The court concluded that none of the grounds of appeal raised were successful. Consequently, the appeals against conviction were dismissed, and the applications to adduce further evidence and to appeal against sentence were refused. The final orders affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants, with the only possible sentence for the appellants found guilty of murder being mandatory life imprisonment.

ORDERS:
1. In respect of each appellant, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. In respect of the appellant Crothers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused.
3. In respect of the appellant Rogers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
4. In respect of the appellant Yvonne Heathcote, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of each appellant, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. In respect of the appellant Crothers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused.

3. In respect of the appellant Rogers, the application to adduce further evidence is refused. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

4. In respect of the appellant Yvonne Heathcote, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

The conversation was important direct evidence. There was no misdirection with respect to it. (b)The trial judge's instructions concerning the application of section 8 to the facts The second complaint making up ground 3 is that the jury was not given any instruction as to the application of s 8 to the facts of the case: Fingleton v The Queen.[14] [14](2005) 227 CLR 166, 196-7. The complaint is without substance. The trial judge approached her instructions to the jury with respect to s 8 by explaining the section and its operation in general terms and then separately discussing its application to the cases against Yvonne Heathcote, David Heathcote and Rogers. Her Honour read the section, gave a paraphrase of it, and explained how the prosecution sought to use the section, by reference to the particulars furnished. Her Honour said: The learned judge then turned to the separate requisites of the section and explained "common intention" and "probable" in terms which are not the subject of criticism. That part of the summing-up concluded: The summing-up then turned immediately to "the section 8 case against Yvonne Heathcote" and the jury was asked to consider "Was there a plan to which she was a party?" There followed a summary of the evidence relevant to that point, and the arguments of counsel, prosecution and defence, with respect to it. Her Honour finished this part of her summing-up by saying: The appellant's submissions do not identify what additional instruction the trial judge should have given. It is not obvious that anything more could sensibly have been said. The section was read to the jury and its operation explained. The jury were well aware of the circumstances of John Hoghes' homicide. They were reminded of the evidence which implicated Yvonne Heathcote in what the Crown alleged was a common unlawful purpose and told they could convict of murder only if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that murder was an offence of such a nature as to be a probable consequence of carrying out the common unlawful purpose. To say so much was to instruct the jury as to the real issue in the case, the facts relevant to it and how the law applied to the facts. This complaint, too, is without substance and ground 3 is not made out. There was no complaint made about the summing-up with respect to count 2, the burglary. For the reasons given in Crothers' appeal, ground 4 in this appeal, that the jury was inadequately instructed on self-defence, has not been made out. Yvonne Heathcote's appeal should therefore be dismissed. Ground 5 contains four separate complaints which separately or in combination are said to have caused the trial to miscarry.(a)Independent jury investigations The first complaint, that the jury had made independent investigations, arose from the fact that a juror took a roadmap into the jury room the better to understand evidence of the appellants' movements and the roads on which they travelled. At the commencement of the trial, the judge directed the jury in these terms:

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Our review of the way the trial was conducted leaves us unpersuaded that Rogers' trial was unfair because of his self-representation. A miscarriage of justice has not resulted through the judge's omission to give Rogers the opportunity to seek further legal representation or advice after he dispensed with his lawyers during this trial. This contention also fails. It follows that Rogers' ground of appeal (a) is not made out.(e)Conclusion on Rogers' application to adduce further evidence We have carefully considered the further evidence which Rogers has sought to adduce in this appeal. We note that it does not demonstrate nor suggest that Rogers was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offending or that he was unfit to plead or instruct his counsel during the trial. Even taking the further evidence into account, none of the grounds of appeal raised has been successfully made out. It follows that, had the further evidence been led at trial, there is no significant possibility, and nor it is likely, that a reasonable jury would have acquitted him. The refusal of the application to adduce the further evidence does not result in a miscarriage of justice.[94] It follows that Rogers' application to adduce the further evidence must be refused.[94]Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392, 397, 399, 407; Mickelberg v The Queen (1988) 167 CLR 259, 273, 275, 292, 301-302; R v Katsidis; ex parte Attorney-General Queensland [2005] QCA 229, [2]-[4], [11]-[19], [36]. Yvonne Heathcote and Rogers applied for leave to appeal against sentence. But as their convictions for murder have been affirmed by this Court, the only sentence that can be imposed on them is mandatory life imprisonment.[95] Their applications for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.[95]Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 305(1).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.