R v Fitzgerald - [1999] QCA 109

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 109
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 183 of 1998
Brisbane
[R v Fitzgerald]
T H E Q U E E N
v
DARREN MICHAEL FITZGERALDAppellant
McPherson JA
Davies JA
White J

Judgment delivered 9 April 1999.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Directions to the jury - Whether misdirection by trial judge in summing up - Section 23 Criminal Code - "An event which occurs by accident".
Hughes v The King (1951) 84 CLR 170.
Hind & Harwood (1995) 80 A Crim R 105
R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1
R v Mullen (1938) 59 CLR 124, 128-129
R v Taiters, ex p Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333, 335
Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426, 438.

Counsel: Mr A Hoare for the appellant
Mr D Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors: Mr A Hoare for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 26 March 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA
Judgment delivered 9 April 1999
1     The appellant was found guilty at a trial in the Supreme Court of charges of murder, burglary, and armed robbery in company with personal violence. This is his appeal against conviction on the count of murder. He has not appealed against his conviction on the other two counts, to which he pleaded guilty.
2     On 25 January 1997 a Mr Larry Street was living at a house at Vulture Street, East Brisbane. About 11.00 pm on that day he was at his home with two other persons, a Mr Michael Turner and Ms Alexandra Doran, who was the victim of the murder. They were sitting talking when someone came to the front door and demanded to be let in. It was the appellant, who was accompanied by two other persons. He was demanding to be supplied with marijuana. After some altercations, he forced his way in. He was wearing a beanie pulled down over his face, and carrying a sawn-off shotgun, which, as later events showed, was loaded and ready to fire.
3     There was a lot of shouting and confusion, and the appellant ordered those present to lie on the floor. Then he pulled Street to his feet and forced him into the dining room, where he repeatedly struck him about the head with the butt of the gun, while screaming "Where is it ? Where is it ? Where are the drugs ? Where is the money ? Where is it ? I want it now." Street produced some money and some cannabis. He was taken into the bedroom, where some more money was produced. The appellant again clubbed Mr Street with the gun until he was knocked unconscious.
4     The appellant then turned his attention to Turner and Ms Doran who were on the floor in the lounge. According…

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 Fitzgerald

Details

AGLC: R v Fitzgerald [1999] QCA 109
Case: [1999] QCA 109
Decision Date: 9/04/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fitzgerald involved a legal dispute that came before the court, with the central issue being the interpretation and application of certain legal principles. The court had to determine the outcome of the case based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties involved.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were centered around the interpretation of statutory provisions and their application to the specific facts of the case. The court needed to consider whether the actions of the defendant complied with the legal requirements set out in the relevant legislation and whether any defences raised by the defendant were valid.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered precedents and legal principles established in previous cases. The court found that the actions of the defendant did not comply with the statutory requirements, and that the defences raised were not valid. The court therefore ruled in favour of the prosecution, finding the defendant guilty of the charges against them.

The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the legal issues and the evidence presented. The outcome of the case was that the defendant was found guilty, and the court ordered the appropriate penalties to be imposed in accordance with the law. The court's decision provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

WHITE J

I agree with the orders proposed by McPherson JA for the reasons which he has given. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Judgment delivered 9 April, 1999 I agree with the orders proposed by McPherson JA for the reasons which he has given. 1. As in The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30. 2. For example, Cooper v McKenna [1960] Qd R 406.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WHITE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 109
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Counsel:	Mr A Hoare for the appellant Mr D Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors:	Mr A Hoare for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	26 March 1999