R v Daley - [1999] QCA 329

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 329
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 180 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v Daley]
THE QUEEN
v
TIMOTHY PATRICK DALEY

(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P Thomas JA Derrington J

Judgment delivered 20 August 1999.
Judgment of the Court.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE - SUMMING UP.
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS.
Appellant convicted of unlawful killing of an animal, namely a goat - whether trial judge erred in refusing to redirect the jury that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an animal had in fact been killed - whether directions on aspect of identification and recognition adequate.
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 applied

Counsel: Ms K McGuinness for the appellant/applicant.
Mr W Clark for the respondent.
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent.
Hearing Date: 3 August 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 20 August 1999

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully killing an animal namely a goat. He was sentenced to 240 hours community service and ordered to pay compensation of $500. A conviction was recorded. He appeals against the conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.
The appellant was a neighbour of the complainants. They lived at Geata via Gin Gin. The complainants farmed pigs, goats and other animals on their 45 acre property. They had resided there since 1991 and the appellant had lived on the adjoining property since 1996.
The evidence of the complainants was that on the day in question they were in their shed which bordered the appellant's fence line when they heard a gun shot. They looked out and saw the appellant on his property armed with a shotgun which was resting on his shoulder and pointing in the direction of their fence line. A number of cows and goats were respectively running along the fence lines of the respective properties. The complainants then saw the appellant point his shotgun towards the goats and fire at them over the fence line. They saw one of their goats jump in the air and fall over. The appellant put the gun over his shoulder and walked away. They inspected the goat and found it to be dead with a number of shotgun pellets in its body. They removed the pellets and put them in a container. They cut up the usable part of the goat in due course and consumed it having disposed of the remainder of the body down a tip. Police were called later that day, but initially only an answering machine message could be left. The following day the complainants went to the police station and made statements. A few days later the policeman visited the properties and made further investigations. The complainants gave him the pellets that they had extracted from…

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 Daley

Details

AGLC: R v Daley [1999] QCA 329
Case: [1999] QCA 329
Decision Date: 20/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Timothy Patrick Daley, was convicted of the unlawful killing of an animal, specifically a goat, and was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and ordered to pay compensation of $500. The conviction and sentence were appealed to the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in not redirecting the jury to ensure they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an animal had indeed been killed. Additionally, the appellant contested the adequacy of the trial judge's directions on aspects of identification and recognition.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented, which included the testimonies of the complainants, who witnessed the appellant shooting at the goats. The court found that the complainants' evidence was consistent and adequate to support the conviction. The court further noted that the risk of a wrong result lay in the possible untruthfulness of the complainants rather than any deficiencies in the identification evidence. The directions given by the trial judge on identification and recognition were deemed sufficient.

Regarding the principal point of contention, the court concluded that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the necessity to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the goat was killed. The summation of the trial judge made it clear that the jury had to be convinced of the killing as an essential element of the offence. The court found no merit in the appeal against the conviction and dismissed it. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused as the sentence was considered moderate given the circumstances.

Orders