R v Huxley

Case [2021] QCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Huxley [2021] QCA 78

PARTIES:

R
v
HUXLEY, Brent Malcolm
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 272 of 2019
SC No 141 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 18 September 2019 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2020

JUDGES:

Fraser, Morrison and Mullins JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of murder by a jury – where there was evidence from a witness that the appellant admitted to him that he had killed the victim by dropping a rock on the victim’s head – where the witness did not make a statement to the police until after the witness had read a newspaper article that the appellant was charged with the murder of the victim who had been bashed and stoned to death – where the prosecution case depended on this witness’ evidence – where the trial judge directed the jury that they must accept the accuracy and reliability of the witness’ evidence as to the confession and find that the appellant was truthful in making the confession beyond reasonable doubt before they could convict the appellant of murder – where the appellant’s admission, if accepted, would have been considered in conjunction with the circumstantial evidence against the appellant – whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PRESENTATION OF CROWN CASE – where the appellant was found guilty of murder by a jury – where the prosecutor in opening referred to the actions of a participant in the offending as part of plan involving the appellant and the participant and information provided by that participant to the police that assisted in the location of the victim’s body – where at the time of the opening the prosecution did not expect to call this participant as a witness – where there was an application by the appellant after the opening to discharge the jury– where the trial judge ruled against discharging the jury – where the trial judge gave specific directions to the jury to ignore the statements made in the prosecution opening that made reference to the information provided to the police by the participant and the alleged plan – where the trial judge ruled that the prosecution case had to be confined to that based on the manner and place of killing that conformed with the appellant’s alleged confession – whether the prosecutor’s opening caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty of murder by a jury – where…

Continue reading R v Huxley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Huxley [2021] QCA 78
Case
[2021] QCA 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brett Huxley appealed his conviction of murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's directions to the jury, among other grounds. The key issue for the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, considering the evidence presented, including a confession by the appellant that was central to the prosecution's case. The court also needed to determine whether certain trial judge directions or omissions constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the jury was properly directed to consider the appellant's confession and its credibility in light of the other evidence. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as it was based on the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's admission, which, if believed, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also held that the trial judge's directions, although they might have been imperfect, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The prosecutor's opening address, which was later disregarded by the trial judge, did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court determined that the trial judge's handling of a reluctant witness and her directions about the weight of the evidence did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of murder was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Grounds 2 and 3 are related and will be dealt with together. Grounds 4 and 5 are related and will be dealt with together. The latter grounds are relied on as supplementing the unfairness caused by the prosecutor’s opening address that is the subject of grounds 2 and 3 which was a concession by Mr Hamlyn-Harris of counsel who appears with Mr Edridge of counsel for Mr Huxley that, even if grounds 4 and 5 showed unfairness to Mr Huxley in the trial, there was not sufficient unfairness to amount to a miscarriage of justice.Evidence at the trial In August 2015 Mr McCabe was living with his uncle Mr Gary Doyle in Charters Towers. Mr Doyle last saw Mr McCabe around 5.30 pm on Saturday, 15 August 2015 when he left in a white Commodore with a black bonnet (the white Commodore) with Mr Doyle’s daughter, Ms Leonie Doyle, and a woman called Candis. Mr Doyle knew that Mr McCabe was a drug user. Another uncle, Mr Anderson, also gave evidence of seeing Mr McCabe in mid-August 2015, when Mr McCabe “mentioned Brett Huxley had been in contact with him and stated to him that him and a couple of other people that day he’s coming up to collect”. Mr Anderson also knew that Mr McCabe was a drug user. Mr Moore who was a cousin of Mr McCabe saw Mr McCabe at Mr Doyle’s place when Ms Leonie Doyle and another woman with blonde hair in her early twenties called Candis were present. Mr Moore recalled that everyone at Mr Doyle’s place when he was there was using “ice” and he described Mr McCabe as “wired” which meant he was “high on ice”. Mr Munns who was a cousin of Mr McCabe and also lived in Charters Towers saw Mr McCabe on 15 August 2015. Mr Munns’ partner, Ms Bridges, had helped Mr McCabe prepare his tax return which resulted in a refund of $3,042 which went into Ms Bridges’ account. Mr Munns and Ms Bridges arranged with Mr McCabe for Mr McCabe to collect his tax refund money on Monday, 17 August 2015. Mr Munns also had a telephone call from Mr McCabe for a couple of minutes at 8.31 pm on the evening of 15 August 2015 when Mr McCabe said he was with Leonie Doyle and on his way to Townsville. Mr McCabe did not contact either Mr Munns or Ms Bridges on 17 August 2015. On 15 August 2015 Mr Huxley was living at a unit in Burnda Street in Townsville that was rented by Ms O’Dell. Ms O’Dell went on a camping trip on 14 August 2015 and returned on 16 August 2015 about 4.30 pm or 5pm. On her return, she noticed “the blood on the ground and stuff like that” and that a mat was missing. When she was doing the bond clean a couple of weeks later, she noticed that the mop and mop bucket were missing. In August 2015 Ms Sacha Lee was living in Townsville and knew Mr Rewha and Mr Huxley. She also knew Mr Taylor who was living in her house. In the early afternoon on a day in August 2015, Mr Rewha and Mr Huxley arrived in a dark blue Commodore. They stayed at Ms Lee’s house for a short time and then Mr Rewha, Mr Huxley, Mr Taylor and Ms Lee all went to a hotel and stayed for an hour or so before returning to Mr Huxley’s unit in the blue Commodore. They arrived at 4.00 pm or 4.30 pm. There was no one else in the unit. They all had a shot of methylamphetamine. Ms Lee stayed in the unit, when Mr Rewha, Mr Taylor and Mr Huxley then left for a couple of hours about 6.00 pm or 6.30 pm. They returned a bit later about 8.00 pm in the blue Commodore and were very agitated, pacing up and down in the lounge room. Then a red car and a bigger white one arrived and a white girl with blonde hair and a blue streak in her hair (who the jury would have inferred from other evidence was Ms Greer) walked into the apartment, Mr Rewha talked to her and they went into a bedroom. Ms Lee could see out the window that Mr Huxley was talking to a younger girl whom she described as a dark Murri girl (who the jury would have inferred from other evidence was Ms Leonie Doyle) and she and Mr Huxley then took off in the blue Commodore.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.