R v Hayes

Case [2008] QCA 371

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hayes [2008] QCA 371

PARTIES:

R
v
HAYES, Errol Graham
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 8 of 2008
SC No 981 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal against convictions dismissed1.   

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused2.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of arson – whether the directions given by the learned trial judge to the jury in relation to the charge of arson were appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the issue of intoxication was raised on the evidence at trial – where the learned trial judge gave directions to the jury as to the operation of intoxication and its potential impact upon their deliberations – whether the directions given by the learned trial judge to the jury on the issue of intoxication were appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – TEST TO BE APPLIED – whether it was on all the evidence reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt of the offence of arson
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – where the Crown at trial sought to rely upon four distinct unlawful purposes as grounds for the conviction of the appellant of murder as defined under s 302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that they may, in finding the appellant to be guilty of the offence of murder, rely upon any of the four unlawful purposes put to them

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE – POTENTIALLY UNRELIABLE WITNESS OR EVIDENCE GENERALLY – whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of certain witnesses

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of arson and three counts of murder – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment on each of the counts of murder – where it was ordered that the appellant not be released until he has served 24 and a half years in prison – whether the
non-release period imposed by the learned sentencing judge was in all the circumstances manifestly…

Continue reading R v Hayes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hayes [2008] QCA 371
Case
[2008] QCA 371
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hayes, the appellant sought to overturn his convictions for one count of arson and three counts of murder, as well as challenging the severity of his sentence. The appeal raised several points of law, including the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the elements of the charges and the impact of intoxication, the reasonableness of the jury's verdict in light of the evidence, and the trial judge's failure to issue a corroboration warning in relation to certain witnesses. The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence, which involved concurrent life imprisonment terms for the murders with a non-release period of 24 and a half years.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury about the legal criteria for arson and the effects of intoxication were accurate and comprehensive. It also had to assess whether the jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt was justifiable based on the presented evidence. Another key issue was whether the trial judge should have cautioned the jury about the risks of convicting solely on the uncorroborated testimony of certain witnesses. Finally, the court needed to decide if the appellant's sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the crimes.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and did not contain any significant errors. The jury's verdict was held to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court also concluded that no corroboration warning was necessary, as the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions without it. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that the terms were appropriate and did not warrant an appeal.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against convictions dismissed1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused2.

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.