R v Daley; ex parte

Case [2005] QCA 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Daley; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 162

PARTIES:

R
v
DALEY, Timothy Patrick
(petitioner/appellant)

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

FILE NO/S:

CA No 336 of 2004
DC No 30 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 672A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Conviction set aside
2. Pursuant to s 668E(2) Criminal Code a verdict of       acquittal entered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - PARDON, COMMUTATION OF PENALTY, REFERENCE ON PETITION FOR PARDON AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - REFERENCE TO COURT - where accused convicted of killing a goat belonging to his neighbours - where neighbours gave evidence for the prosecution at trial - where new witness statements gathered since trial showed history of animosity directed towards the accused by neighbours - where new ballistics evidence cast doubt on whether a goat had actually been killed - whether there had been a miscarriage of justice - whether conviction should be set aside

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 672A

R v Condren;  ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 574, cited
R v Main [1999] QCA 148; (1999) 105 A Crim R 412, followed
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510, cited
Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116, cited
RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 199 CLR 620, cited
R v Young (No 2) [1969] Qd R 566, cited
TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; (2002) 212 CLR 124, applied

Ali v The Queen [2005] HCA 8; (2005) 214 ALR 1, applied

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan SC for petitioner
S G Bain for respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance on behalf of petitioner
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

WILLIAMS JA:  I will ask Justice Keane to deliver the first set of reasons.

KEANE JA: Mr Daley was convicted on 14 May 1999 on one count of unlawfully killing a goat in contravention of Section 468 of the Criminal Code 1899 Queensland. Mr Daley appealed against that conviction. His appeal was dismissed by this Court on 20 August 1999. An application for special leave to the High Court of Australia was dismissed on 24 November 2000. On 23 September 2004, the Honourable the Attorney-General referred the whole of Mr Daley's case to this Court pursuant to Section 672A of the Criminal Code. By virtue of that provision, Mr Daley's case must "be heard and determined by this Court as in the case of an appeal by a person convicted".

It is convenient to summarise the evidence adduced at Mr Daley's trial.  Mr Daley was a neighbour of the complainants, Mr and Mrs Burgess, who farmed pigs, goats…

Continue reading R v Daley; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Daley; ex parte [2005] QCA 162
Case
[2005] QCA 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for a reference under section 672A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), seeking to set aside a conviction for the killing of a goat belonging to the applicant's neighbours. The applicant had been convicted based on the neighbours' testimony and evidence presented at trial. However, new witness statements emerged post-trial indicating a history of animosity towards the applicant by the neighbours. Additionally, new ballistics evidence cast doubt on whether a goat had actually been killed. The court was required to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred and if the conviction should be set aside.

The primary legal issue was whether the new evidence, including the history of animosity between the applicant and the neighbours, along with the ballistics evidence, was sufficient to warrant a setting aside of the conviction. The court had to consider the principles established in cases such as RPS v The Queen, TKWJ v The Queen, and Ali v The Queen, which outline the conditions under which a conviction may be set aside due to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The applicant argued that the new evidence, if believed, would likely have resulted in an acquittal.

The court, following the precedent in R v Main, concluded that the new evidence was of such a nature that it would likely have resulted in an acquittal had it been available at the time of the trial. The history of animosity suggested bias in the neighbours' testimony, and the ballistics evidence cast significant doubt on the core of the prosecution's case. The court found that these factors cumulatively demonstrated a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the conviction. Consequently, the court ordered the conviction to be set aside and entered a verdict of acquittal pursuant to section 668E(2) of the Criminal Code.

The final orders were that the conviction was set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was entered in accordance with section 668E(2) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Conviction set aside

2. Pursuant to s 668E(2) Criminal Code a verdict of acquittal entered

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.