R v Dean

Case [2019] QCA 254

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dean [2019] QCA 254

PARTIES:

R
v
DEAN, William Francis
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 64 of 2017
DC No 973 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 21 March 2017 (Jackson J)

DELIVERED ON:

19 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2019

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Gotterson and Morrison JJA

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction on count 1 be allowed, the conviction be quashed, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be substituted, and the matter be remitted to the trial division for the appellant to be sentenced for that offence.

2.   The appeal against conviction on count 2 on the indictment be allowed, the conviction on that count be quashed, and a retrial ordered on that count.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – INTENTION TO KILL OR CAUSE SERIOUS NON-FATAL INJURY – where the appellant was convicted on three counts: count 1, murder; count 2, torture; and count 3, improper interference with a corpse – where the deceased’s remains were discovered charred and scattered three months after he was reported missing – where the deceased had been kidnapped and taken from the Gold Coast to Cooloola Cove by the appellant – where the evidence supported a finding that the deceased was being held for the purpose of discovering where missing drugs or money were kept – where witness evidence indicated that the deceased was assaulted and kept in an fishing esky by the appellant and others – where the assaults and treatment to the deceased was said to include smashing his kneecaps and bones in his hands and cutting off of a finger – where the evidence indicated that the appellant had been present and participated in the assaults upon the deceased – where the subjection of the deceased during his imprisonment to violence and other mistreatment culminated in his death – where the appellant tended a fire pit for two days where clothing and shoes were fed into it – where the appellant burnt the body of the deceased by putting it into a fire pit – where the cause of death of the deceased could not be established – where it was contended that the appellant did not hold the requisite intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased – whether the deceased’s death was resultant of the intentional actions of the appellant – whether the jury was able to find the appellant guilty of murder – whether there was a rational hypothesis consistent with innocence of the offence of murder

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant challenges his conviction on the ground the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence – where it was submitted that…

Continue reading R v Dean

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dean [2019] QCA 254
Case
[2019] QCA 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dean, the appellant was convicted on three counts: murder, torture, and improper interference with a corpse. The deceased, Barker, was kidnapped from the Gold Coast to Cooloola Cove by the appellant, where he was subjected to a series of assaults and mistreatment. Barker's charred and scattered remains were discovered three months after he was reported missing. The central issues in the appeal were whether the appellant held the requisite intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, whether the jury's verdict was reasonable, and whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in relation to the torture conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered the appellant's argument that the jury could not have been satisfied that he acted with the requisite intent to kill Barker. It was contended that a reasonable hypothesis was that Barker died while in the control of the appellant and co-accused, but none of them held the requisite intent. The court held that there was insufficient evidence of intent by the appellant to kill Barker, leading to the quashing of the murder conviction. The court further found that the jury should have been directed to be unanimous about which act or series of acts was intentionally inflicted to cause severe pain or suffering, leading to a miscarriage of justice in relation to the torture conviction.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal against the conviction on count 1 should be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be substituted. The matter was to be remitted to the trial division for sentencing on that offence. Additionally, the appeal against the conviction on count 2 was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a retrial ordered on that count.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal against conviction on count 1 be allowed, the conviction be quashed, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be substituted, and the matter be remitted to the trial division for the appellant to be sentenced for that offence.
2. The appeal against conviction on count 2 on the indictment be allowed, the conviction on that count be quashed, and a retrial ordered on that count.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction on count 1 be allowed, the conviction be quashed, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be substituted, and the matter be remitted to the trial division for the appellant to be sentenced for that offence.

2. The appeal against conviction on count 2 on the indictment be allowed, the conviction on that count be quashed, and a retrial ordered on that count.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

As will appear, the appellant concedes that the jury could find that he improperly interfered with Barker’s corpse.Summary of evidence The essential events concerning Barker’s death involve a number of people, most or all of whom were involved in drug dealings of one sort or another.[1][1]For ease of reference only I shall use surnames for all participants, except two Armitages (father and son) and one Matthew Dean (not related to the appellant). Barker, a drug dealer and methylamphetamine (ice) user, had drug dealings which led, in October 2013, to his retrieving about $80,000 worth of ice from a hotel room. Barker told his ex-girlfriend, Jones, that the ice belonged to Scott Murphy.[2][2]A dealer in, and heavy user of, ice; referred to as “Mr Big” by Stephen Armitage. Soon after that Romhegyi[3] saw the appellant and Jaffre[4] come to the house Romhegyi lived in, with Barker. Barker had been assaulted so badly that he could not hold himself up, and remained slumped and sleeping on the sofa for two days, during which time the appellant and Jaffre fed him pills. Romhegyi understood Barker was there because of a debt. The appellant told Romhegyi to stay away from Barker and not talk to him.[3]Ice user and tenant in a house owned by Murphy.[4]Ice dealer who worked for Murphy in a pizza shop. After two days Murphy arrived and spoke to Barker. From Murphy’s voice it sounded like Barker was in trouble. Murphy then left with Barker in Murphy’s silver Audi, and the appellant and Jaffre left in the appellant’s vehicle (a white Toyota LandCruiser wagon). Afterwards Barker had sporadic contact with Jones, saying he was becoming more paranoid, looking over his shoulder and thinking people were following him. Jones last saw him on 9 December 2013. He said he had to take care of matters with Murphy. She understood that Barker owed a debt to Murphy.9 December 2013 On 9 December there were calls between Stephen Armitage[5] and (i) his son, Matthew Armitage, and (ii) the appellant. Barker called Murphy in the afternoon, following which Stephen Armitage attempted to call both the appellant and Matthew Armitage. There were further calls between Stephen Armitage, Matthew Armitage and the appellant. The appellant’s mobile service registered use at the Gold Coast.[5]A dealer in, and heavy user of, ice; involved in mullet fishing industry; lived at Cooloola Cove. The appellant’s LandCruiser was at Murphy’s house at 10 pm, as was Murphy’s Audi and Healy’s silver Holden sedan.10 December 2013 On 10 December there were multiple calls between Stephen Armitage and the appellant, Murphy and Matthew Armitage. At 2.32 pm the appellant’s LandCruiser was seen driving south along the Bruce Highway, near Burpengary. Healy drove up from Coffs Harbour to the Gold Coast to assist his ex-girlfriend Hill. Barker had left Hill at a hotel and not paid the $2,000 bill. Healy sent messages to Barker telling him he had only hours to pay before Healy arrived. Barker had also been using someone else’s drugs and suggesting that Healy had stolen them. As a result Healy was angry and wanted to bash Barker. On the way up Healy received a call from a man saying that he was to leave Barker alone. By the time Healy dropped Hill back to rehab it was night. He later met Murphy who told him to leave Barker alone.

Decision

Reasons for decision

This ground can be dealt with shortly. In R v Armitage; R v Armitage[60] this Court held in respect of this issue, which arose at the same trial at that of the appellant, that the appeal should be allowed and that the proviso in s 668E(1A) of the Code did not apply. Mr Boyle, for the respondent, accepted that for the same reasons the appellant’s appeal on this ground should be allowed and that there should be a retrial on count 2 on the indictment. Those orders are appropriate.[60][2019] QCA 149 at [109]-[118].Conclusion I would order as follows:1.The appeal against conviction on count 1 be allowed, the conviction be quashed, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter be substituted, and the matter be remitted to the trial division for the appellant to be sentenced for that offence.2.The appeal against conviction on count 2 on the indictment be allowed, the conviction on that count be quashed, and a retrial ordered on that count.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.