R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy & Hill - [2016] QSC 220

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy & Hill [2016] QSC 220

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
WADE LEE GOLDSWORTHY, BLAKE NATHAN GOLDSWORTHY and MATTHEW JOHN HILL

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 203 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 – 16, 19 – 22 September 2016

JUDGE:

Burns J

RULING:

1.          Wade Lee Goldsworthy has a case to answer on the indictment.

2.          Blake Nathan Goldsworthy has no case to answer on the indictment, and the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty.

3.          Matthew John Hill has a case to answer on the indictment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATIING TO PROOF – PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where the deceased died following an altercation with one or more of the accused – where the trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the fatal blow was inflicted after the deceased went to ground – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, substantially caused or contributed to the death of the deceased – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to that find that the accused, or any one of them, aided the other or others to commit the offence of manslaughter

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLIARY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURE – GENERALLY – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, was either a principal offender under s 7(1)(a) Criminal Code (Qld) or an aider under s 7(1)(b) or s 7(1)(c) Criminal Code (Qld)

JURY – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – where it was submitted that the testimony of a number of witnesses was unreliable or had been discredited – whether the case should be left to the jury

EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – GIVING EVIDENCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – AS TO WHAT – PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy & Hill and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QSC 220
Decision Date: 26 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy & Hill, the court was presented with a case involving three co-accused who were charged with manslaughter. The deceased had died following an altercation with one or more of the accused. The trials of the accused were heard together, and at the close of the Crown case, a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused. The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the fatal blow was inflicted after the deceased went to ground, whether it was open for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, substantially caused or contributed to the death of the deceased, and whether it was open for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, aided the other or others to commit the offence of manslaughter.

The court examined the evidence and considered the submissions made on behalf of each accused. It was determined that Matthew Hill could lawfully be convicted of manslaughter as it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that he substantially caused or contributed to the death of the deceased. Consequently, Matthew Hill had a case to answer on the indictment. However, with respect to Blake Goldsworthy, the court concluded that he did not have a case to answer on the indictment, and the jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty with respect to him. The court found that Wade Goldsworthy and Matthew Hill had a case to answer on the indictment.

In summary, the court held that Matthew Hill could be convicted of manslaughter and had a case to answer on the indictment. Blake Goldsworthy did not have a case to answer on the indictment, and the jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty with respect to him. Wade Goldsworthy and Matthew Hill had a case to answer on the indictment. The final orders of the court were that Matthew Hill could be convicted of manslaughter, Blake Goldsworthy was to be found not guilty, and Wade Goldsworthy and Matthew Hill had a case to answer on the indictment.

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

It follows that Matthew Hill could lawfully be convicted of manslaughter and has, for that reason, a case to answer on the indictment.Conclusion Blake Goldsworthy does not have a case to answer on the indictment, and the jury will accordingly be directed to return a verdict of not guilty with respect to him. Wade Goldsworthy and Matthew Hill have a case to answer on the indictment.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy & Hill [2016] QSC 220
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v WADE LEE GOLDSWORTHY, BLAKE NATHAN GOLDSWORTHY and MATTHEW JOHN HILL
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 203 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 – 16, 19 – 22 September 2016
JUDGE:	Burns J
RULING:	1. Wade Lee Goldsworthy has a case to answer on the indictment. 2. Blake Nathan Goldsworthy has no case to answer on the indictment, and the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty. 3. Matthew John Hill has a case to answer on the indictment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATIING TO PROOF – PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where the deceased died following an altercation with one or more of the accused – where the trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the fatal blow was inflicted after the deceased went to ground – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, substantially caused or contributed to the death of the deceased – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to that find that the accused, or any one of them, aided the other or others to commit the offence of manslaughter CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLIARY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURE – GENERALLY – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – whether it was open on the evidence for the jury to find that the accused, or any one of them, was either a principal offender under s 7(1)(a) Criminal Code (Qld) or an aider under s 7(1)(b) or s 7(1)(c) Criminal Code (Qld) JURY – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of each accused – where it was submitted that the testimony of a number of witnesses was unreliable or had been discredited – whether the case should be left to the jury EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – GIVING EVIDENCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – AS TO WHAT – PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS – where three co-accused were charged with manslaughter – where their trials were heard together – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf…