R v Hunt - [2017] QCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hunt [2017] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
HUNT, David John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 332 of 2014
SC No 561 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 9 December 2014

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant and the deceased had previously been in a consensual BDSM sexual relationship – where the appellant and the deceased had increasingly acrimonious arguments about sexual images of the deceased appearing online and money said to be owed to the appellant – where the deceased had previously been rescued by police from a non-consensual violent assault by the appellant but had declined to make a criminal complaint – where the appellant contended that the deceased had connections to various organised crime groups, had previously told him of details of multiple murders she had committed and was a heavy user of the drugs ice and cannabis – where that evidence was disputed by members of the deceased’s family – where the appellant contended that he had invited the deceased into his home and she set upon him in his house and that he had killed her in self-defence – where the deceased had 68 injuries inflicted upon her, some by a metal bar, and there were few injuries to the appellant – where most of the matters relied upon by the appellant to ground his fear of the deceased had been known to him for a long period of time prior to the killing – where the appellant had attempted to dispose of the deceased’s body and her phone – whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant contended that he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s ready acceptance of his invitation to come to his house – where, upon the appellant’s evidence, the deceased set upon him inside his house and he managed to escape the building, down the external stairs and onto the front lawn – where the appellant contended he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s attack upon him and the prospect of assistance by her associates, none of whom were present during the attack – where the purpose of the appellant’s use of force was to defend himself, rather than to prevent the deceased from entering or re-entering his house to commit an indictable offence within the house – whether there was a miscarriage of justice because the jury was not instructed to consider defence of dwelling under s 267 Criminal Code

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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: R v Hunt [2017] QCA 52
Case: [2017] QCA 52
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hunt involved the appellant's appeal against his conviction of murder. The appellant and the deceased had previously been in a consensual BDSM sexual relationship, which had turned acrimonious. The appellant contended that he had killed the deceased in self-defence after she had attacked him in his home, although he had invited her there. The deceased had 68 injuries inflicted upon her, some by a metal bar, and there were few injuries to the appellant. The appellant attempted to dispose of the deceased’s body and her phone. The appellant also claimed that he had told the police about his fear for his life prior to the killing, and tendered an affidavit from his son which sought to corroborate his claims.

The legal issues in the case centred around whether the appellant's claim of self-defence was reasonable, and whether there was a miscarriage of justice because the jury was not instructed to consider defence of dwelling under s 267 Criminal Code (Qld). The court needed to determine whether the appellant's fear of the deceased was genuine and whether the appellant's use of force was proportionate to the perceived threat. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant's claims about the call to the police and the affidavit from his son constituted fresh or new or further evidence, and whether the addition of that evidence would make the verdict an unreasonable one.

The court found that the appellant's claim of self-defence was not reasonable. The court noted that most of the matters relied upon by the appellant to ground his fear of the deceased had been known to him for a long period of time prior to the killing. The court also found that the appellant's claims about the call to the police and the affidavit from his son did not constitute fresh or new or further evidence, and that the addition of that evidence would not make the verdict an unreasonable one. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction of murder.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the appellant's conviction of murder. The appellant remained in custody pending his sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Hunt [2017] QCA 52
PARTIES:	R v HUNT, David John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 332 of 2014 SC No 561 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 9 December 2014
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 November 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant and the deceased had previously been in a consensual BDSM sexual relationship – where the appellant and the deceased had increasingly acrimonious arguments about sexual images of the deceased appearing online and money said to be owed to the appellant – where the deceased had previously been rescued by police from a non-consensual violent assault by the appellant but had declined to make a criminal complaint – where the appellant contended that the deceased had connections to various organised crime groups, had previously told him of details of multiple murders she had committed and was a heavy user of the drugs ice and cannabis – where that evidence was disputed by members of the deceased’s family – where the appellant contended that he had invited the deceased into his home and she set upon him in his house and that he had killed her in self-defence – where the deceased had 68 injuries inflicted upon her, some by a metal bar, and there were few injuries to the appellant – where most of the matters relied upon by the appellant to ground his fear of the deceased had been known to him for a long period of time prior to the killing – where the appellant had attempted to dispose of the deceased’s body and her phone – whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant contended that he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s ready acceptance of his invitation to come to his house – where, upon the appellant’s evidence, the deceased set upon him inside his house and he managed to escape the building, down the external stairs and onto the front lawn – where the appellant contended he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s attack upon him and the prospect of assistance by her associates, none of whom were present during the attack – where the purpose of the appellant’s use of force was to defend himself, rather than to prevent the deceased from entering or re-entering his house to commit an indictable offence within the house – whether there was a miscarriage of justice because the jury was not instructed to consider defence of dwelling under s 267 Criminal Code