R v Hughes - [2012] QCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hughes [2012] QCA 208

PARTIES:

R
v
HUGHES, Diana Fae
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2011
SC No 363 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and A Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant charged and convicted with murdering her de facto partner – where trial judge admitted evidence relating to disclosures by the deceased of his suspicion that he was being drugged by the appellant – whether the evidence given by various witnesses was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where evidence was led that the appellant was suffering from an abnormality of the mind at the time of the killing – where the prosecution called rebuttal evidence – whether the jury ought to have accepted that the appellant was suffering from a diminished capacity and consequently found her guilty of manslaughter and not guilty of murder

Criminal Code 1889 (Qld), s 304A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B

R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; [2001] NSWCCA 494, cited
R v Lester (2008) 190 A Crim R 468; [2008] QCA 354, considered

COUNSEL:

A Hoare for the appellant (pro bono)
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant, Diana Hughes, was charged with murdering her former de facto partner, Greg Stewart, on 9 August 2006. She appeals against her conviction on two grounds. The first is that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that related to disclosures by the deceased as to a suspicion that he was being drugged by the appellant. The second is that the jury ought to have accepted she was suffering from a diminished capacity and therefore ought to have found her not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter.

The issues at the pre-trial hearing and the trial and the relevant evidence

Before discussing these grounds of appeal, it is necessary to summarise the issues at the pretrial hearing and the trial, and the relevant evidence. It was common ground that the appellant was responsible for the death which was caused by strangulation, either manually or with a rope. The issues at trial were self-defence and diminished responsibility.

The pre-trial hearing

At a hearing the day before the trial commenced, the defence objected to various aspects of the prosecution evidence including that relating to representations made by the deceased to witnesses of his suspicion…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2012] QCA 208
Case: [2012] QCA 208
Decision Date: 14 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hughes, the appellant was convicted of murdering her de facto partner. The appellant appealed against her conviction, arguing that the trial judge improperly admitted evidence regarding the deceased's suspicion that he was being drugged by the appellant, and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and insupportable given the evidence of her abnormality of the mind. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the deceased's suspicions was admissible, and whether the jury should have accepted the evidence of the appellant's diminished capacity and found her guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.

The court found that the evidence of the deceased's suspicions was properly admitted as it was relevant to the circumstances of the killing and the appellant's state of mind at the time. The court also found that the jury was entitled to reject the evidence of the appellant's abnormality of the mind and that the verdict of guilty of murder was open on the evidence. The court held that the evidence of the deceased's suspicions went to the appellant's state of mind and was relevant to the circumstances of the killing. The court also found that the evidence of the appellant's abnormality of the mind was not sufficient to establish diminished responsibility and that the jury was entitled to reject it.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence of the deceased's suspicions and that the jury's verdict was open on the evidence. The court also found that the evidence of the appellant's abnormality of the mind was not sufficient to establish diminished responsibility. The appellant's conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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.

CITATION:	R v Hughes [2012] QCA 208
PARTIES:	R v HUGHES, Diana Fae (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 75 of 2011 SC No 363 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and A Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant charged and convicted with murdering her de facto partner – where trial judge admitted evidence relating to disclosures by the deceased of his suspicion that he was being drugged by the appellant – whether the evidence given by various witnesses was admissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where evidence was led that the appellant was suffering from an abnormality of the mind at the time of the killing – where the prosecution called rebuttal evidence – whether the jury ought to have accepted that the appellant was suffering from a diminished capacity and consequently found her guilty of manslaughter and not guilty of murder Criminal Code 1889 (Qld), s 304A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; [2001] NSWCCA 494, cited R v Lester (2008) 190 A Crim R 468; [2008] QCA 354, considered
COUNSEL:	A Hoare for the appellant (pro bono) D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent