R v DAN

Case [2007] QCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DAN [2007] QCA 66

PARTIES:

R
v
DAN
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 174 of 2006
SC No 779 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams and Holmes JJA concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed
2. New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – the appellant was convicted of murder – the case against him was wholly circumstantial – the trial judge failed to give specific directions about crucial pieces of evidence and the use that could be made of such evidence – where the circumstances of the case required the judge, in summing up, to present competing case theories with relevant evidence – where the hypothesis of death by natural causes had to be excluded beyond reasonable doubt – where jury had to be satisfied on the evidence of an intention to cause death or cause grievous bodily harm – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice – whether a new trial should ensue

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 296, s 302

Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315, distinguished
Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, considered
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, cited
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619, cited
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378, cited
Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205, considered
R v Ciantar [2006] VSCA 263, considered
R v Huebner; R v Maher[2004] QCA 98, CA No 291 of 2003, CA No 301 of 2003, 6 April 2004, considered
R v Onufrejczyk [1955] 1 QB 388, cited
R v Rice [1996] 2 VR 406, considered
R v Ryan [1906] St R Qd 15, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the appellant
R G Martin SC, with D R MacKenzie, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale & Son for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. de JERSEY CJ: The appellant was convicted by a jury of the offence of murder.  The charge was that he murdered D at Brisbane, or elsewhere in Queensland, between 12 and 17 December 2003.  He appealed against that conviction on the ground the prosecution did not, beyond reasonable doubt, exclude a reasonable inference that D died from natural causes. 

  1. In an amended notice of appeal, the appellant abandoned that ground. The grounds pursued are that the conviction is unsafe; that the learned Judge failed adequately to direct the jury on s 296 of the Criminal Code, and on…

Continue reading R v DAN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DAN [2007] QCA 66
Case
[2007] QCA 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, DAN, was convicted of murder and appealed the decision on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice, specifically misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to consider whether the trial judge's failure to give specific directions about crucial pieces of evidence, particularly in the context of a wholly circumstantial case, led to a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's shortcomings in presenting competing case theories and the relevant evidence to the jury constituted such a significant error that it warranted a new trial.

The court examined the evidence and the trial judge's summing up to assess whether the jury had been adequately guided to exclude the hypothesis of death by natural causes beyond reasonable doubt and to be satisfied on the evidence of an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The court concluded that the trial judge's omissions in directing the jury on these crucial aspects of the case were indeed significant errors that affected the fairness of the trial and the outcome of the conviction. As a result, the court found that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered. The court held that the misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge were so substantial that they undermined the integrity of the trial process and warranted a retrial to ensure a fair outcome. This decision highlights the importance of clear and comprehensive judicial directions in criminal trials, particularly in cases where the evidence is circumstantial and the potential for alternative explanations exists.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. New trial ordered

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.