R v George

Case [2013] QCA 267

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v George [2013] QCA 267

PARTIES:

R
v
GEORGE, Donald Tommy
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 125 of 2012
SC No 7 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against convictions dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of murdering an elderly couple in their home pursuant to s 302(1)(b) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld): causing death by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life (felony murder) – where the unlawful purpose was particularised as burglary with an intent to either steal or sexually assault – where the appellant contended that there were others with significant criminal histories for burglary and violence in the vicinity of the deceased's house on the relevant night – where the appellant contended that there were rational inferences open on the evidence that had not been excluded such as the reasonable possibility that the appellant may have gone into the deceased's house after another person had committed the murders without any assistance from him – where no DNA from any person other than the appellant was located inside the deceased's house – whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the trial judge admitted propensity evidence of an attempted burglary at a house across the street from the deceased's residence on the night of the killings on the basis that there was no other reasonable explanation for the conduct of the appellant in the attempted burglary other than the inculpation of the appellant in the murders – where the appellant contended that the trial judge's reasoning was circular and flawed and that the evidence could support an exculpatory inference that the appellant was too intoxicated to form an intent to commit an indictable offence – where the appellant contended that the trial judge's decision was inconsistent with an earlier refusal to join the attempted burglary and murder charges – whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of the attempted burglary

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – APPLICATION OF PROVISO TO PARTICULAR CASES – where there was ample evidence that the appellant was intoxicated on the night the deceased were killed – where, pursuant to s 28(3) Criminal Code,…

Continue reading R v George

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v George [2013] QCA 267
Case
[2013] QCA 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of the murders of an elderly couple in their home. The basis for the conviction was that the appellant caused their deaths while committing an act in furtherance of an unlawful purpose, namely burglary, with intent to steal or sexually assault. The appellant argued that there were others in the vicinity with significant criminal histories for burglary and violence, and that there were rational inferences open on the evidence that had not been excluded, such as the possibility that the appellant may have entered the deceased's house after another person had committed the murders without any assistance from him. The appellant also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an attempted burglary, and that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to the offence of murder.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. The court also had to decide whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the attempted burglary and whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to murder under s 302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that there was ample evidence that the appellant was intoxicated on the night the deceased were killed, and that intention to cause a specific result is an element of an offence. Therefore, intoxication may be regarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an intention in fact existed. The court held that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication to murder under s 302(1)(b) when the unlawful purpose was particularised as an offence including, as an element, an intent to cause a specific result. However, the court held that the guilty verdicts did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the appeal against convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against convictions 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.