R v Gwilliams - [1997] QCA 389

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 389
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 414 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Gwilliams]

T H E Q U E E N

DARLENE JEANETTE GWILLIAMS

(Applicant) Appellant
Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.

Judgment delivered 31 October 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - Sections 8, 302 Criminal Code - Section 121 Juvenile Justice Act 1992 - Whether chart supplied to jury by trial judge complex - Whether a “particularly heinous offence”. R. v. Barlow (1997) 144 A.L.R. 317; Smith v. The Queen (1970) 121 C.L.R. 572.
Counsel:	Mr A. Rafter for the appellant Mr D. Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	15 August 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered 31 October 1997

I agree with the reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. and with the orders he proposes.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 31 October 1997

This is an appeal by Darlene Janette Gwilliams against her conviction at a trial in the Supreme Court of the murder of Leslie Alexander Cowie at Brisbane on 10 December 1994. She also seeks leave to appeal against sentence, which in her case was one of detention for 14 years on the murder conviction. She was 16 at the time Mr Cowie was killed, having been born on 8 April 1978, and so was over 17 years of age when convicted and sentenced in 1995.

The circumstances of the offence are set out in some detail in the reasons delivered in the contemporaneous appeal or appeals in R. v. Nicholls (C.A. nos. 266 of 1996 and 479 of 1995). Briefly stated, they are as follows. The appellant Darlene Gwilliams was the oldest of a group of four teenagers who travelled by train to Sunnybank on 10 December 1994. They were walking around in the Coopers Plains area when they came to the house at which Mr and Mrs Cowie lived. They formed a plan of stealing from the house. The appellant first went into the yard and turned the electricity off at the house. She then summoned the others.

They went to the back door of the house and asked if they could use the toilet. They were invited in by Mr and Mrs Cowie, and sat in the kitchen. One of them asked for and was given a drink. Rodney Munro said he was hungry. At Mr Cowie’s suggestion, Mrs Cowie began to prepare some cheerios for them to eat, when she found the power was off. The group then left after being given the package of cheerios to take with them.

On the way out they were walking along the driveway beside the house, with the appellant bringing up the rear, and Mr…

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 Gwilliams

Details

AGLC: R v Gwilliams [1997] QCA 389
Case: [1997] QCA 389
Decision Date: 31/10/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the respondent, Gwilliams, against his conviction for murder and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The respondent was found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court of Queensland and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years. The Court of Appeal, in turn, reduced the non-parole period to 14 years, which the respondent appealed to the High Court. The primary issue was whether the trial judge supplied a complex chart to the jury, and if so, whether the offence was "particularly heinous" for the purposes of determining the non-parole period.

The court had to determine whether the chart provided by the trial judge to the jury was complex, which could be prejudicial to the accused if not done properly. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the offence was "particularly heinous" under section 121 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. This classification would affect the length of the non-parole period, with a lower limit of 10 years for particularly heinous offences. The court considered the nature of the offence and whether it warranted such a classification.

In examining the nature of the offence, the court considered the arguments made by both parties, including references to R. v. Barlow and Smith v. The Queen. The court found that the offence was not "particularly heinous" and, therefore, the non-parole period should not be as low as 10 years. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender when determining the non-parole period. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the non-parole period set at 14 years.

The court's decision clarified the application of section 121 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 and the criteria for determining whether an offence is "particularly heinous". The court stressed the importance of a thorough and balanced assessment of the facts of each case to ensure appropriate sentencing. The final orders confirmed the conviction for murder and the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.

Orders