Legal Research
Cases
R v Hill; R v Young

R v Hill; R v Young

Case [2014] QCA 107 16 May 2014

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Verdict Unreasonable

Miscarriage of Justice

Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence

Consciousness of Guilt

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107

PARTIES:

R
v
HILL, Bradley David
(appellant)

R
v
YOUNG, Kerryn Anne
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 154 of 2013
CA No 152 of 2013
SC No 6 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2014

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Leave be granted to Hill to adduce the further evidence.

2.   Hill’s appeal be dismissed.

3.   Young’s appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant Young and the appellant Hill were in a relationship – where Hill and the deceased used to be good friends but had fallen out – where Young found out that Hill was sleeping with another woman – where on Friday 8 October 2010 Hill was in Brisbane and Young and the deceased were in Gladstone – where on the evening of Friday 8 October and the morning of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased communicated to Hill via text messages and phone calls that they were sleeping together – where in response Hill made death threats via text messages and phone calls against the deceased – where on Saturday 9 October Hill travelled to Gladstone allegedly acquiring heroin en route – where on Saturday 9 October Young and Hill reconciled – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased arranged for the former to deliver the latter a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October or the morning of Sunday 10 October Hill arranged for Weston to place an envelope in the deceased’s letterbox – where on Sunday 10 October the deceased injected himself with a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug and died – where medical evidence determined that the deceased died from an overdose of heroin – where there was evidence that the deceased used amphetamines but not heroin – where Hill was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased – where Hill contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where inter alia Hill contends that Hill’s hostility toward the deceased did not continue after he arrived in Gladstone and the deceased injected the drugs on a voluntary and informed basis – whether the verdict against Hill is unreasonable and insupportable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where Young was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Code – where Young contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported…

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 Hill; R v Young

Details

AGLC: R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107
Case: [2014] QCA 107
Decision Date: 16 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Hill and Young, were convicted of the murder of a deceased individual. Hill was convicted under section 302 of the Criminal Code, and Young under section 7. Both appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and insupportable when considering the evidence presented. Hill contended that his hostility toward the deceased did not continue after he arrived in Gladstone and that the deceased injected drugs on a voluntary and informed basis. Young argued that the lethal dose of heroin did not come from the envelope Hill had placed in the deceased’s letterbox and that she did not have actual knowledge that Hill had an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

The court considered the appellants' arguments and determined that the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdicts against both appellants. The court also considered whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the trial due to the improper admission or rejection of evidence. The court found that the evidence presented, including the contradictory statement of McNeil and the references to Hill’s alleged drug dealing and improper interference with children, did not prejudice the trial to such an extent that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the post-offence conduct by Hill did not constitute evidence of consciousness of guilt.

The court dismissed both Hill’s and Young’s appeals. The court did, however, grant leave to Hill to adduce further evidence in relation to McNeil’s contradictory statement. The final orders were that leave be granted to Hill to adduce the further evidence, Hill’s appeal be dismissed, and Young’s appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave be granted to Hill to adduce the further evidence.

2. Hill’s appeal be dismissed.

3. Young’s appeal be 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107

Most Recent Citation

R v Hill and May [2018] SADC 67

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Nash
[2022] QCA 84 Para 4

…her circumstances in the case and, where the case depends upon circumstantial evidence, in the totality of that circumstantial evidence.”[4] [2][2014] QCA 107. [3]With whom de Jersey CJ and Fraser JA agreed. [4][2014] QCA 107 at [187].…
R v Cummins
[2019] QCA 308 Para 14

…ould not infer from the fact that the accused was implicated in the killing that he or she had the requisite intention.[12] [8] R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107 at [187]. [9] Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193. [10]See R v Chang (2003) 7 VR 236 at [48]; R v SSB [2007] QCA at [32]; Benchbook No 50.1. [11] R…
R v Hill and May
[2018] SADC 67

…kos (2005) 92 SASR 258; R v Ngo (2002) 135 A Crim R 550; R v Castle and Bucca [2015] SASCFC 180; R v Soteriou (2013) 118 SASR 119; R v Hill and Young [2014] QCA 107; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; R v Schanker [2018] VSCA 94; R v Mustafa (2005) 91 SASR 62; R v Hulse (1971) 1 SASR 327; R v Derwish [2016] VSCA…
High Court Bulletin
[2014] HCAB 7

…Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2014] QCA 107…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Flora v The Queen
[2013] VSCA 192 Para 1

…t. That evidence includes: [365] R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, at 780 and 786; R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26, at [40], [67]-[72]; Flora v The Queen [2013] VSCA 192, at [79]-[82].…
SKA v The Queen
[2011] HCA 13

…; [2011] HCA 13, considered Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529; [1964] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: C W Heaton QC, with K Prskalo, for the appellant, Hill C Chowdury for the appellant, Young B J Merrin for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Hill Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant,…
R v Ferguson
[2009] VSCA 198

…; [2009] VSCA 198, cited R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400; [1910] HCA 68, considered R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529; [1964] HCA…
R v Martindale
[2009] QCA 24

…e [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529; [1964] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: C W Heaton QC, with K Prskalo, for the appellant, Hill C Chowdury for the…
R v Ciantar
[2006] VSCA 263

…; [2006] VSCA 263, cited R v Ferguson (2009) 24 VR 531; [2009] VSCA 198, cited R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400; [1910] HCA 68, considered R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, consi…
R v Taylor
[2004] VSCA 98

…; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529; [1964] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: C W Heaton QC, with K Prskalo, for the appellant, Hill C Chowdury for the appellant, Young B J Merrin for the respondent SO…
Vincent Raymond Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 56

…[21] Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56, at 450-451 per Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ.…
Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 12

…[21] Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56, at 450-451 per Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ.…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63

…; [1994] HCA 63, considered R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; [2006] VSCA 263, cited R v Ferguson (2009) 24 VR 531; [2009] VSCA 198, cited R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400; [1910] HCA 68, considered R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2)
[1984] HCA 7

…; [1984] HCA 7, considered Flora v The Queen [2013] VSCA 192, cited Hayes v The Queen (1973) 47 ALJR 603, considered M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; [2006] VSCA 263, cited R v Ferguson (2009) 24 VR 531; [2009] VSCA 198, cited R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400;…
Hayes v The Queen
[1967] HCA 29

…n (1973) 47 ALJR 603, considered M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; [2006] VSCA 263, cited R v Ferguson (2009) 24 VR 531; [2009] VSCA 198, cited R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400; [1910] HCA 68, considered R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213;…
Woon v The Queen
[1964] HCA 23

…; [1964] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: C W Heaton QC, with K Prskalo, for the appellant, Hill C Chowdury for the appellant, Young B J Merrin for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Hill Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Young Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the resp…
Plomp v The Queen
[1963] HCA 44

…[20](1963) 110 CLR 234, at p. 244.…
Raspor v The Queen
[1958] HCA 30

…[19](1958) 99 CLR 346, at pp. 350-352.…
R v Grills
[1910] HCA 68

…; [1910] HCA 68, considered R v Martindale [2009] QCA 24, cited R v Taylor (2004) 8 VR 213; [2004] VSCA 98, cited R v Williams [1987] 2 Qd R 777, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529; [1964] HCA 23, cited COUNSEL: C W Heaton QC, with K Prskalo, f…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107
PARTIES:	R v HILL, Bradley David (appellant) R v YOUNG, Kerryn Anne (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 154 of 2013 CA No 152 of 2013 SC No 6 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2014
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Leave be granted to Hill to adduce the further evidence. 2. Hill’s appeal be dismissed. 3. Young’s appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant Young and the appellant Hill were in a relationship – where Hill and the deceased used to be good friends but had fallen out – where Young found out that Hill was sleeping with another woman – where on Friday 8 October 2010 Hill was in Brisbane and Young and the deceased were in Gladstone – where on the evening of Friday 8 October and the morning of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased communicated to Hill via text messages and phone calls that they were sleeping together – where in response Hill made death threats via text messages and phone calls against the deceased – where on Saturday 9 October Hill travelled to Gladstone allegedly acquiring heroin en route – where on Saturday 9 October Young and Hill reconciled – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased arranged for the former to deliver the latter a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October or the morning of Sunday 10 October Hill arranged for Weston to place an envelope in the deceased’s letterbox – where on Sunday 10 October the deceased injected himself with a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug and died – where medical evidence determined that the deceased died from an overdose of heroin – where there was evidence that the deceased used amphetamines but not heroin – where Hill was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased – where Hill contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where inter alia Hill contends that Hill’s hostility toward the deceased did not continue after he arrived in Gladstone and the deceased injected the drugs on a voluntary and informed basis – whether the verdict against Hill is unreasonable and insupportable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where Young was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Code – where Young contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported…