R v Dean

Case [2009] QCA 309

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dean [2009] QCA 309
PARTIES: R
v
DEAN, Daniel Craig
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 53 of 2009
SC No 49 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction – Delivery of reasons

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered 15 September 2009
Reasons delivered 16 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore 15 September 2009

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Conviction set aside.

3.   New trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant relied on self-defence in s 271(1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where the Crown argued that the appellant had ‘provoked’ the punch from the deceased that the appellant sought to rely on for self-defence – where the trial judge gave general directions on self-defence but did not give any direction as to the meaning of ‘provoked’ in s 271 – where the trial judge did not direct the jury as to the meaning of ‘assault’ in s 271 – whether the jury might have concluded that something less than provocation as it is defined in s 268 is sufficient for the purposes of s 271 – whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the meaning of ‘assault’ – whether the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the trial judge did not direct the jury as to the existence and application of s 272 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where defence counsel did not ask that such a direction be given – where the trial judge alluded to the actual beliefs of the appellant when directing the jury as to the test under s 271(1) – whether a s 272 defence was open on the evidence and the trial judge was obliged to direct the jury accordingly – whether the trial judge incorrectly imported a subjective element into the objective test in s 271(1) as to whether the degree of force used was reasonably necessary – whether the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where trial judge admitted evidence of the appellant’s aggressive behaviour towards others which was unrelated to the deceased – where appellant argued that this amounted to disposition or tendency evidence and was inadmissible – whether such evidence was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY – ACCUSED ORIGINAL AGGRESSOR – whether the defence of self-defence is defeated where…

Continue reading R v Dean

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dean [2009] QCA 309
Case
[2009] QCA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dean, the appellant appealed against his conviction for the murder of the deceased. The appellant had pleaded self-defence, claiming he acted in response to an assault by the deceased. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on the law of self-defence, which amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the trial judge's failure to define 'provoked' in s 271 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and 'assault' in s 271 amounted to a misdirection or non-direction that prejudiced the appellant. Additionally, it was argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury on the meaning of 'assault' and whether the trial judge's allusion to the actual beliefs of the appellant in the context of s 271(1) was appropriate. The Court considered whether the omission of a direction on s 272 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the existence and application of a defence of self-defence, was an error that required a new trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the meaning of 'provoked' and 'assault' constituted a significant non-direction that likely prejudiced the appellant. The Court held that the omission of a direction on s 272 of the Criminal Code was also an error, as it was arguable that the defence of self-defence was open on the evidence. The Court concluded that these errors were substantial enough to warrant a new trial, as the jury might have reached a different conclusion had they been properly directed. The Court also found that the admission of evidence regarding the appellant's aggressive behaviour towards others was not prejudicial to the appellant's case.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial for the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Conviction set aside.

3. 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.