R v Handley - [2011] QCA 361

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Handley [2011] QCA 361

PARTIES:

R
v
HANDLEY, Clint Owen
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 134 of 2011
SC No 135 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where the appellant stabbed the deceased once in the abdomen with a knife and then fled the scene – where the appellant threatened the deceased immediately after the stabbing – where there was evidence that the deceased was also armed with a knife at or around the relevant time – where a number of witnesses testified that the appellant was the aggressor – where the appellant was intoxicated at the relevant time – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the primary judge directed the jury on intent – where the appellant submitted that the primary judge erred in failing to relate the direction to the facts of the case – where the appellant argued that the jury should have been told to consider intoxication – whether the primary judge inadequately directed the jury on intent – whether the failure to give certain directions gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 620

Cutter v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 638; [1997] HCA 7, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v Dunrobin[2008] QCA 116, cited
R v Mogg (2000) 112 A Crim R 417; [2000] QCA 244, cited
R v Rope[2010] QCA 194, cited
R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413, cited
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, considered

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan for the appellant
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MUIR JA: The appellant was convicted of the murder of Rafal Jagoszewski on 25 May 2011 after a six day trial in the Supreme Court in Brisbane. He appeals on grounds that:

(a) The conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence; and

(b) There was a miscarriage of justice in that the primary judge’s directions about intention were inadequate.

The…

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 Handley

Details

AGLC: R v Handley [2011] QCA 361
Case: [2011] QCA 361
Decision Date: 13 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Handley, appealed against his conviction of murder. The appeal centred on the reasonableness and supportability of the jury's verdict in light of the evidence presented. The case was heard in the higher appellate court of Australia. The appellant was found to have stabbed the deceased in the abdomen with a knife and subsequently fled the scene. There was evidence indicating that the deceased was also armed with a knife during the incident, and several witnesses testified that the appellant was the aggressor. Additionally, the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offence. The central legal issues were whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The court examined whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable considering the evidence. It considered the appellant's intoxication and the nature of the interaction between the parties. The court noted that the appellant had stabbed the deceased and then fled the scene, which was consistent with a premeditated intent to cause harm. The court also evaluated the argument that the primary judge did not adequately direct the jury on the issue of intent, particularly in relation to the appellant's intoxication. The court found that the primary judge's directions were sufficient and that the evidence was adequate for the jury to reach a reasonable verdict.

The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The appellate court found that the primary judge's directions to the jury were appropriate, and that the failure to give additional directions did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The reasoning of the court was that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellant intended to cause harm, and that the appellant's intoxication did not negate this intention.

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 Handley [2011] QCA 361
PARTIES:	R v HANDLEY, Clint Owen (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 134 of 2011 SC No 135 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where the appellant stabbed the deceased once in the abdomen with a knife and then fled the scene – where the appellant threatened the deceased immediately after the stabbing – where there was evidence that the deceased was also armed with a knife at or around the relevant time – where a number of witnesses testified that the appellant was the aggressor – where the appellant was intoxicated at the relevant time – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the primary judge directed the jury on intent – where the appellant submitted that the primary judge erred in failing to relate the direction to the facts of the case – where the appellant argued that the jury should have been told to consider intoxication – whether the primary judge inadequately directed the jury on intent – whether the failure to give certain directions gave rise to a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 620 Cutter v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 638; [1997] HCA 7, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited R v Dunrobin[2008] QCA 116, cited R v Mogg (2000) 112 A Crim R 417; [2000] QCA 244, cited R v Rope[2010] QCA 194, cited R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413, cited RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, considered
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan for the appellant D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent