R v Fraser - [2004] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Fraser [2004] QCA 92

PARTIES:

R
v
FRASER, Leonard John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 163 of 2003
SC No 263 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – IN GENERAL – EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY OR IRREGULARY OBTAINED – where appellant convicted of one count of manslaughter and two counts of murder – where appellant made statements and admissions to a witness who was helping police - whether the evidence of a witness as to statements made by the appellant should have been excluded because of the methods used to obtain the evidence – whether the trial Judge should have admitted evidence obtained from the appellant while in the custody of police pursuant to an order under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – whether evidence of the appellant’s previous conviction of murder should have been admitted as propensity or similar fact evidence

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 230, s 233

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, distinguished
McDermott v R (1948) 76 CLR 501, considered
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, applied
R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595, considered
R v Juric (2002) 4 VR 411, considered
R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564; [1999] QCA 50, CA No 332 of 1998, 5 March 1999, considered
R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: On 9 May 2003 a jury in the Supreme Court convicted the appellant of three offences: the manslaughter of Julie Dawn Turner at Rockhampton on or about 28 December 1998 (he was acquitted of her murder); the murder of Beverley Leggo at Rockhampton between 25 February 1999 and 31 March 1999; and the murder of Sylvia Benedetti at Rockhampton between 16 April 1999 and 22 April 1999. He appeals against those convictions.

The appellant had additionally been indicted on a fourth charge of murder, in relation to Natasha Ryan. Uniquely in Queensland’s history, Natasha Ryan was found alive in the course of the trial. The Crown then entered a nolle prosequi on that count.

The prosecution case was that the appellant violently murdered each of the women and disposed of their bodies at various locations near Rockhampton. His motivation was at least partly sexual. (In relation to…

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 Fraser

Details

AGLC: R v Fraser [2004] QCA 92
Case: [2004] QCA 92
Decision Date: 2 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of one count of manslaughter and two counts of murder. The case reached the court where the appellant sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation and trial. The appellant argued that statements made to a witness who was assisting police should have been excluded due to the methods used to obtain them. Additionally, the appellant contested the admissibility of evidence obtained while in police custody under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The court was also required to consider whether evidence of the appellant's previous conviction for murder should have been admitted as propensity evidence.

The court addressed the admissibility of the statements made to the assisting witness, determining that the methods used did not render them inadmissible as they were not obtained through any illegal or oppressive means. The court found that the trial judge correctly admitted the evidence obtained under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, as it was properly obtained and relevant to the charges. Regarding the previous conviction, the court held that it was properly admitted as similar fact evidence, as it was relevant to the appellant's intent and knowledge in relation to the current charges.

The court concluded that the trial judge correctly admitted all the challenged evidence, and thus, the appellant's convictions were upheld. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Fraser [2004] QCA 92
PARTIES:	R v FRASER, Leonard John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 163 of 2003 SC No 263 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – IN GENERAL – EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY OR IRREGULARY OBTAINED – where appellant convicted of one count of manslaughter and two counts of murder – where appellant made statements and admissions to a witness who was helping police - whether the evidence of a witness as to statements made by the appellant should have been excluded because of the methods used to obtain the evidence – whether the trial Judge should have admitted evidence obtained from the appellant while in the custody of police pursuant to an order under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – whether evidence of the appellant’s previous conviction of murder should have been admitted as propensity or similar fact evidence
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 230, s 233 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, distinguished McDermott v R (1948) 76 CLR 501, considered Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, applied R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595, considered R v Juric (2002) 4 VR 411, considered R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564; [1999] QCA 50, CA No 332 of 1998, 5 March 1999, considered R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the appellant P F Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent