R v Huebner; R v Maher - [2004] QCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98

PARTIES:

R
v
HUEBNER, Sven
(appellant)

R
v
MAHER, Amy Louise
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 291 of 2003
CA No 301 of 2003
SC No 17 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and McPherson and Williams JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams and McPherson JJA agreeing as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting in part

ORDERS:

1. In the appeal by Huebner – CA No 291 of 2003:

(a)   appeal allowed

(b) quash the conviction for murder

(c)   substitute a verdict of guilty of manslaughter

(d) remit the question of sentence for the offence of manslaughter to the Trial Division

2. In the appeal by Maher – CA No 301 of 2003:

(a)   appeal allowed

(b) quash the conviction for murder

(c)   order that there be a re-trial for the offence of manslaughter

(d) the appellant is remanded in custody for re-trial

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – SIMILAR FACTS – TO PROVE INTENTION – where appellants convicted of murder – where evidence was admitted at trial by a witness who had been assaulted by appellants under similar circumstances to that of victim – where learned trial judge in summing-up indicated that evidence could be used to prove intent – whether evidence admissible – whether evidence probative of motive or intent with respect to killing of victim – whether learned trial judge gave adequate warning as to the limited use that could be made of similar fact evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED – whether learned trial judge’s comments in relation to the evidence in his summing-up were speculative – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether re-trial for murder should be ordered

BRS v R (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited
Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106, cited
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, applied
R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564; [1999] QCA 50; CA No 332 of 1998, 5 March 1999, cited
R v Olney [1996] 1 Qd R 187, distinguished

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for the appellant in CA No 291 of 2003
B W Walker SC, with F H Martin, for the appellant in CA No 301 of 2003
A J Rafter SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant in CA No 291 of 2003
Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant in CA No 301 of 2003
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I have benefited from reading the reasons for judgment of Williams JA in which the facts and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Huebner; R v Maher and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QCA 98
Decision Date: 6 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Huebner and Maher, were convicted of murder and subsequently appealed their convictions. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in allowing evidence of a similar fact incident where the appellants had assaulted a person under circumstances similar to those surrounding the death of the victim. The court needed to determine whether this evidence was admissible and if it was probative of the appellants' intent in the murder of the victim. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge provided an adequate warning regarding the limited use of similar fact evidence and whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court found that the trial judge’s comments during the summing-up were speculative and did not adequately limit the use of the similar fact evidence. The court concluded that the similar fact evidence was not properly admitted as it was not sufficiently relevant to prove the appellants' intent. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge's comments created a risk that the jury might have used the evidence improperly, thus making the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the convictions for murder were quashed. In the case of Huebner, the court substituted a verdict of guilty of manslaughter and remitted the matter for sentencing. For Maher, the court ordered a re-trial for the offence of manslaughter, remanding the appellant in custody pending the re-trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In the appeal by Huebner – CA No 291 of 2003:

(a) appeal allowed

(b) quash the conviction for murder

(d) remit the question of sentence for the offence of manslaughter to the Trial Division

2. In the appeal by Maher – CA No 301 of 2003:

(a) appeal allowed

(b) quash the conviction for murder

(d) the appellant is remanded in custody for re-trial

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 Huebner; R v Maher [2004] QCA 98
PARTIES:	R v HUEBNER, Sven (appellant) R v MAHER, Amy Louise (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 291 of 2003 CA No 301 of 2003 SC No 17 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and McPherson and Williams JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams and McPherson JJA agreeing as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting in part
ORDERS:	1. In the appeal by Huebner – CA No 291 of 2003: (a) appeal allowed (b) quash the conviction for murder (c) substitute a verdict of guilty of manslaughter (d) remit the question of sentence for the offence of manslaughter to the Trial Division 2. In the appeal by Maher – CA No 301 of 2003: (a) appeal allowed (b) quash the conviction for murder (c) order that there be a re-trial for the offence of manslaughter (d) the appellant is remanded in custody for re-trial
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – SIMILAR FACTS – TO PROVE INTENTION – where appellants convicted of murder – where evidence was admitted at trial by a witness who had been assaulted by appellants under similar circumstances to that of victim – where learned trial judge in summing-up indicated that evidence could be used to prove intent – whether evidence admissible – whether evidence probative of motive or intent with respect to killing of victim – whether learned trial judge gave adequate warning as to the limited use that could be made of similar fact evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED – whether learned trial judge’s comments in relation to the evidence in his summing-up were speculative – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether re-trial for murder should be ordered BRS v R (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106, cited Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, applied R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564; [1999] QCA 50; CA No 332 of 1998, 5 March 1999, cited R v Olney [1996] 1 Qd R 187, distinguished
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan for the appellant in CA No 291 of 2003 B W Walker SC, with F H Martin, for the appellant in CA No 301 of 2003 A J Rafter SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant in CA No 291 of 2003 Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant in CA No 301 of 2003 Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent