Legal Research
Cases
R v Hytch

R v Hytch

Case [2000] QCA 315 4 August 2000

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Misdirection and Non-direction

Jury Direction

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315

PARTIES: R
v
HYTCH, Robert Paul
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 389 of 1999
CA No 434 of 1999
SC No 351 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction & sent

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 4 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 10 May 2000

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction allowed. Conviction set aside. New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – admissibility of statements made by deceased as to her intentions – consideration of Walton v The Queen

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 – GENERALLY – whether direction to the jury relating to the evidence of the deceased’s intention was flawed – whether direction suggested to jury a mutual arrangement between the accused and the deceased to meet on night in question

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 – GENERALLY – whether the jury should have been directed that an alleged lie was an “intermediate fact” which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

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 – GENERALLY – consideration of direction to jury as to whether lies were capable of amounting to consciousness of guilt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – admissibility of DNA 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 – GENERALLY – whether ruling that there was no case to answer should have been made

Bull, King & Marotta v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 836, considered
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521, referred to
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207, considered
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, referred to
Macrae (1995) 80 A CrimR 380, considered
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, referred to
R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000, referred to
R v RNS (1999) NSWCA 2117, referred to
RPS v The Queen (2000) ALJR 449, referred to

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 Hytch

Details

AGLC: R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315
Case: [2000] QCA 315
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a criminal conviction where the accused was found guilty of murder. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Hytch, sought to appeal the decision on several grounds, including the alleged improper admission of evidence, misdirection of the jury, and the failure to rule that there was no case to answer.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the admissibility of certain statements made by the deceased, the direction given to the jury regarding the evidence, and whether the jury should have been directed that an alleged lie was an "intermediate fact" requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court examined whether the lies, if proven, could amount to consciousness of guilt, and the admissibility of DNA evidence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the evidence concerning the deceased's intentions, which could have suggested a mutual arrangement between the accused and the deceased. The Court held that the direction given to the jury about the deceased's intentions was flawed and could have misled them. Furthermore, the Court determined that the jury should have been directed that an alleged lie was an intermediate fact requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial judge should have considered whether there was a case to answer.

The appeal against the conviction was allowed. The conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered to rectify the errors identified by the High Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction allowed. Conviction set aside. New trial ordered

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315

Most Recent Citation

R v Conway [2005] QCA 194

Cases Citing This Decision

Hytch v O'Connell [2018] QSC 75
Citation 1 (Para 4)

…ause of a misdirection to the jury, his conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.[1] He was acquitted at the second trial. [1] R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315.…
R v Perry [2011] QCA 236
Citation 2

…1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b) R v Abell [2007] QCA 448, cited R v Hytch (2000) 114 A Crim R 573, [2000] QCA 315, considered Ratten v The Queen (1972] AC 378, cited Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, considered COUNSEL: P Flanaghan SC, with A Stoker, for the appellant S Ryan for the respondent SOLICITOR…
R v Lacey [2009] QCA 275
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ined on Monday, 27 April 2009. His counsel's two and a half hour closing address to the jury commenced at 10:15am on Tuesday, 28 April. [1] R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315 per McMurdo P at [10]. [2] R v Clarke [2005] QCA 483 per McMurdo P at [66], Helman and Chesterman JJ agreeing. [3] Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 C…
Dowde and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 136
Citation 4

…ledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398 Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750 R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315 REASONS FOR DECISION 21 February 2008 Senior Member M D Allen Dr J Campbell, Member Summary 1. By application made 31 January 2006, the Applicant sought review of a de…
R v Clarke [2005] QCA 483
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…person's case. See also R v Mogg [21] and R v Hytch .[22] [20](2000) 199 CLR 620, [41]. [21][2000] QCA 244; (2000) 112 A Crim R 417, [49], [54]. [22][2000] QCA 315; CA No 389 of 1999, 4 August 2000.…
R v Conway [2005] QCA 194
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…se: RPS v The Queen ,[15] R v Mogg ,[16] R v Hytch [17] and R v Lock .[18] [15](2000) 199 CLR 620, 637-638. [16][2000] QCA 244; 112 A Crim R 417. [17][2000] QCA 315; CA No 389 of 1999, CA No 434 of 1999, 4 August 2000, [10]. [18][2001] QCA 84; CA No 151 of 2000, 13 March 2001.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Velevski [2000] NSWCCA 445
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In Bull, King & Marotta v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 836, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said the following:…
R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…clude identifying the issues, relating the issues to the relevant law and the facts of the case and outlining the main arguments of counsel: R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000). That obligation was not met in this case.…
Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…allegation of consciousness of guilt must be approached is well established and the need for care has recently been reinforced in Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 895. In the present case, the jury was directed in terms which were appropriate that the lie must be deliberate, that it must be told in circumstances an…
M v the Queen [1994] HCA 63
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…favourable for the prosecution, that a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, must have entertained a doubt as to the appellant's guilt: M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, 493. A new trial should be ordered.…
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…It is convenient to deal next with ground 7. In Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, 203 Brennan J referred to a passage from the judgment of Dawson J in Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573, 583 in which the observation was made (after an analysis of Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521) that vari…
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…t with ground 7. In Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, 203 Brennan J referred to a passage from the judgment of Dawson J in Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573, 583 in which the observation was made (after an analysis of Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521) that various items of evidence upon w…
Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ther all hypotheses consistent with innocence are excluded beyond reasonable doubt when the facts proved are considered as a whole. Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 limits the capacity of a trial judge to take a case away from the jury to cases where there is a defect in the evidence such that, taken at its highe…
Walton v The Queen [1989] HCA 9
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…According to Walton v The Queen (1988-9) 166 CLR 283, a deceased’s statements of intention are admissible on the basis that generally people do not assert intentions they do not have and generally they will carry out the intentions they assert. In this case proof of the existence of Rachel Antonio's intentions…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7
Citation 9

…awn. … There can be no superstructure erected without the foundations needed to support it. That is what the majority in Chamberlain [No.2] (184) 153 CLR 521 said, but the proposition embraced by the majority was a proposition of logic rather than of law. To apply the proposition, precision in identification o…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.

CITATION:	R v Hytch [2000] QCA 315
PARTIES:	R v HYTCH, Robert Paul (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 389 of 1999 CA No 434 of 1999 SC No 351 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction & sent
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 May 2000
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction allowed. Conviction set aside. New trial ordered
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – admissibility of statements made by deceased as to her intentions – consideration of Walton v The Queen 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 – GENERALLY – whether direction to the jury relating to the evidence of the deceased’s intention was flawed – whether direction suggested to jury a mutual arrangement between the accused and the deceased to meet on night in question 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 – GENERALLY – whether the jury should have been directed that an alleged lie was an “intermediate fact” which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt 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 – GENERALLY – consideration of direction to jury as to whether lies were capable of amounting to consciousness of guilt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – admissibility of DNA 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 – GENERALLY – whether ruling that there was no case to answer should have been made Bull, King & Marotta v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 836, considered Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521, referred to Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207, considered Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, referred to Macrae (1995) 80 A CrimR 380, considered M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, referred to R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000, referred to R v RNS (1999) NSWCA 2117, referred to RPS v The Queen (2000) ALJR 449, referred to