R v Heuer - [2013] QSC 357

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Heuer [2013] QSC 357

PARTIES:

R

(respondent)

v

HEUER, Eric Roger

(applicant)

FILE NO:

89/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of Criminal Code

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 January 2013

JUDGE:

Justice Margaret Wilson

ORDER:

If the defendant adduces evidence from Dr Peter Fama as to the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offences, the Crown may adduce evidence from Dr Josephine Sundin in rebuttal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE – where the defendant was charged with two counts of attempted murder, and in the alternative with two counts of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where the principal issues were insanity and intent – where the defence sought to lead expert evidence to support insanity – where expert evidence of insanity would be closely entwined with evidence of intent – whether the prosecution should be permitted to adduce expert evidence in rebuttal

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 27, s 590B

Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565, cited
Lawrence v The Queen (1981 – 1982) 38 ALR 1, cited
R v Goode [2004] QCA 211, considered
R v Pateman [1984] 1 Qd R 312, cited
R v Soma [2001] QCA 263, cited
Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365, cited

COUNSEL:

BG Campbell for the Crown
J Pappas for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

MARGARET WILSON J: The defendant has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, and in the alternative with two counts of doing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The principal issues are insanity, on which the defendant bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities, and intent, on which the Crown bears the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Each side proposes to call expert psychiatric evidence. The defendant proposes to call Dr Peter Fama, and the Crown proposes to call Dr Josephine Sundin.

The Crown wishes to call Dr Sundin in rebuttal. The defendant seeks an order requiring the Crown to lead her evidence in its case in chief.

Principles

Relevant principles have been enunciated in Shaw v The Queen[1] and subsequent decisions. The general rule is that the Crown may not split its case: that it must present all of its evidence before the defendant is asked whether he intends to adduce evidence.[2] This is regarded as an important rule of fairness,[3] in that evidence tendered by the Crown after the close of the defence case “may assume an inflated importance in the eyes of the jury”.[4] Ultimately, however, whether the Crown may call evidence in rebuttal is a matter within the discretion of the Court. That discretion is to be exercised in the context of any applicable statutory provisions and relevant principles enunciated in earlier binding authorities. Evidence in rebuttal…

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 Heuer

Details

AGLC: R v Heuer [2013] QSC 357
Case: [2013] QSC 357
Decision Date: 31 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heuer involved the defendant being charged with two counts of attempted murder and, in the alternative, two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent. The primary legal issues were whether the defendant was insane at the time of the alleged offences and, if so, whether this affected the question of intent. The defence sought to introduce expert evidence to support the defence of insanity, which would necessarily involve discussion of the defendant's intent. The court had to determine whether the prosecution should be allowed to introduce expert evidence in response to the defence's expert testimony.

The court considered the necessity and admissibility of expert evidence in this context. It recognised that expert evidence regarding insanity would inevitably overlap with discussions about intent. The court concluded that if the defence presented expert evidence on the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offences, the prosecution should be permitted to introduce expert evidence in rebuttal. This would allow for a comprehensive assessment of the defendant's state of mind and intent, ensuring a fair trial.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for a balanced presentation of expert evidence in criminal trials, especially where mental condition and intent are central issues. By allowing the prosecution to introduce rebuttal evidence, the court aimed to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the defendant's mental state and intent were thoroughly examined. The outcome was that if the defence called Dr Peter Fama as an expert witness, the prosecution would be allowed to call Dr Josephine Sundin to provide a counter-expert opinion.

Orders

Orders of the court

If the defendant adduces evidence from Dr Peter Fama as to the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offences, the Crown may adduce evidence from Dr Josephine Sundin in rebuttal.

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 Heuer [2013] QSC 357
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v HEUER, Eric Roger (applicant)
FILE NO:	89/12
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of Criminal Code
DELIVERED ON:	31 January 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 January 2013
JUDGE:	Justice Margaret Wilson
ORDER:	If the defendant adduces evidence from Dr Peter Fama as to the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offences, the Crown may adduce evidence from Dr Josephine Sundin in rebuttal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE – where the defendant was charged with two counts of attempted murder, and in the alternative with two counts of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where the principal issues were insanity and intent – where the defence sought to lead expert evidence to support insanity – where expert evidence of insanity would be closely entwined with evidence of intent – whether the prosecution should be permitted to adduce expert evidence in rebuttal Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 27, s 590B Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565, cited Lawrence v The Queen (1981 – 1982) 38 ALR 1, cited R v Goode [2004] QCA 211, considered R v Pateman [1984] 1 Qd R 312, cited R v Soma [2001] QCA 263, cited Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365, cited
COUNSEL:	BG Campbell for the Crown J Pappas for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant