R v Crump - [2004] QCA 176

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crump [2004] QCA 176

PARTIES:

R
v
CRUMP, Russell Stewart Henry
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 281 of 2003
SC No 84 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL - where the deceased was found floating in a lagoon and had received two severe blows to the head and multiple wounds to the abdomen - where the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto wife - where the appellant was known to have been violent to the deceased for many years - where there was a strong circumstantial case - where the learned trial judge admitted a witness' evidence of previous violence by the appellant - where the evidence was admitted under s 93B Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) - whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the witness' evidence - whether any wrongful admission of evidence had a prejudicial effect on the appellant

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL - where one witness gave two versions of events on the day of the murder - where there was substantial doubt about the witness' reliability but if believed the evidence was probative - where the appellant contends that the evidence should not have been admitted or alternatively if admitted that another witness should have been called by the prosecution - whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the evidence - whether the learned trial judge misdirected the jury by saying that the defence was able to call another witness

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION - DIRECTIONS AS TO PARTICULAR MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where it was submitted by the appellant that the learned trial judge should have directed the jury that it was open for them to reach a verdict of manslaughter - whether the learned trial judge erred in making no direction on manslaughter

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B

Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285, cited

R v Stevens [2004] QCA 99; CA No 147 of 2003, 6 April 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for appellant
L J Clare for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DAVIES JA:
The appeal

The appellant…

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 Crump

Details

AGLC: R v Crump [2004] QCA 176
Case: [2004] QCA 176
Decision Date: 28 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crump, the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto wife. The deceased was discovered in a lagoon with severe head injuries and multiple wounds to the abdomen. The trial judge admitted evidence of the appellant's history of violence towards the deceased, a decision that was challenged on appeal. The key legal issues focused on the admission of this evidence and whether it was prejudicial to the appellant's case. The appeal also questioned whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by implying that the defence could call another witness.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of previous violence by the appellant. The court noted the significant history of violence between the parties and held that the evidence was relevant and properly admitted under section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The court rejected the argument that the admission of this evidence was prejudicial, as it was relevant to the appellant's propensity for violence and thus to the likelihood of him committing the murder. Furthermore, the court found no error in the trial judge's direction regarding the possibility of calling another witness, as the implication was not misleading.

In addition to the evidence issues, the court examined whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to provide such a direction, as it was not clear that manslaughter was a viable alternative to murder based on the evidence presented. The appeal against the conviction was ultimately dismissed, and the court affirmed the conviction.

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 Crump [2004] QCA 176
PARTIES:	R v CRUMP, Russell Stewart Henry (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 281 of 2003 SC No 84 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2004
JUDGES:	Davies and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL - where the deceased was found floating in a lagoon and had received two severe blows to the head and multiple wounds to the abdomen - where the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto wife - where the appellant was known to have been violent to the deceased for many years - where there was a strong circumstantial case - where the learned trial judge admitted a witness' evidence of previous violence by the appellant - where the evidence was admitted under s 93B Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) - whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the witness' evidence - whether any wrongful admission of evidence had a prejudicial effect on the appellant APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL OF NEW TRIAL - where one witness gave two versions of events on the day of the murder - where there was substantial doubt about the witness' reliability but if believed the evidence was probative - where the appellant contends that the evidence should not have been admitted or alternatively if admitted that another witness should have been called by the prosecution - whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the evidence - whether the learned trial judge misdirected the jury by saying that the defence was able to call another witness APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION - DIRECTIONS AS TO PARTICULAR MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where it was submitted by the appellant that the learned trial judge should have directed the jury that it was open for them to reach a verdict of manslaughter - whether the learned trial judge erred in making no direction on manslaughter Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285, cited R v Stevens [2004] QCA 99; CA No 147 of 2003, 6 April 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for appellant L J Clare for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent