Legal Research
Cases
R v Heyes

R v Heyes

Case [2006] VSCA 86 21 April 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 324 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
MARK ANDREW HEYES

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BUCHANAN and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 April 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 86

---

Criminal Law – Murder – Consciousness of guilt – Lies told by accused equally consistent with murder and manslaughter – Lies of no probative effect with respect to a particular offence – Concert – Failure of trial judge to direct juries to the facts to be found to establish concert – Co-offender found guilty of manslaughter – Verdicts not inconsistent.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.J. Ryan	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L. Carter	Simon English

CHARLES, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons prepared by Buchanan, J.A. in this matter, and, subject to the following additional comments, agree that this application for leave to appeal against conviction should succeed, substantially for the reasons given.

In this case, the applicant’s defences included a denial that he intended to kill the deceased or inflict serious injury, self-defence and provocation. He had agreed with Heathcliff Wilson, the co-accused, to advance a false story to the police and he had told lies both in his initial interview with the police and in the formally recorded interview. These were relied on by the prosecutor in her opening and final addresses as exhibiting consciousness of guilt. Defence counsel argued that the false story and lies were relevant only to the credit of the applicant (who gave evidence) and were incapable of constituting an admission.

The conduct in question was, in my view, relevant and admissible at least as showing consciousness on the part of the applicant that he had acted unlawfully. Questions of real difficulty arose however when the prosecutor sought to use the conduct as exhibiting consciousness of guilt, as opposed to the lesser intent necessary to justify a verdict of manslaughter.

The trial judge was, I think, correct in rejecting the defence submission that the applicant’s lies were relevant only to his credit, and were incapable of constituting an admission. I differ from his Honour, however, with respect, on the question whether his conduct made it more likely that murder had been committed as opposed to manslaughter. The judge regarded himself as bound so to hold by decisions of this Court in R. v. Cako[1], Woolley & Ors[2]; R. v. Rice[3]; and R. v. Burrows[4]. But an examination of each of these cases does not, in my view, lead to that conclusion.
[1]Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 11 May 1989.
[2](1989) 42 A.Crim.R. 418 at 423-424.
[3][1996] 2 V.R. 406 per Brooking, J. at 415-416.
[4][2003] VSCA 130 at [31].

In the first of these cases, Cako had been charged with a series of armed robberies. He repeatedly denied to investigating police officers that he had been involved in…

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 Heyes

Details

AGLC: R v Heyes [2006] VSCA 86
Case: [2006] VSCA 86
Decision Date: 21 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Heyes, the defendant was charged with murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant was alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with another individual to kill a victim. The trial resulted in the co-defendant being found guilty of manslaughter, while the defendant was acquitted of murder but found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The defendant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on the elements required to establish the offence of conspiracy to commit murder, and that the lies told by the defendant were of no probative value with respect to the particular offence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the elements of the offence of conspiracy to commit murder, and whether the lies told by the defendant were of no probative value with respect to the particular offence. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury, as the judge had provided a comprehensive direction on the elements of the offence of conspiracy to commit murder. The court also found that the lies told by the defendant were of no probative value with respect to the particular offence, as they were equally consistent with both murder and manslaughter.

The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury could have found that the defendant had participated in the conspiracy to commit murder but had not actually intended to kill the victim. The court noted that the lies told by the defendant were of no probative value with respect to the particular offence, as they were equally consistent with both murder and manslaughter. The court also found that the failure of the trial judge to direct the juries to the facts to be found to establish concert did not affect the verdicts, as the jury had been properly directed on the elements of the offence of conspiracy to commit murder. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders