R v. James, Tappin and Thomas - [2009] QSC 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v James, Tappin & Thomas [2009] QSC 93

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v.

RICHARD ALLAN GEDDES JAMES

DEAN BARRY CHRISTOPHER TAPPIN

VAUGHAN THOMAS

FILE NO/S:

801/08

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Criminal trial – No case submission

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15-17, 20-24, 27-29 April 2009

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

JURY DIRECTED TO ENTER NOT GUILTY VERDICTS AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS

CATCHWORDS:

JURY – THE JURY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – IN GENERAL – RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – In criminal trial – Where evidence not capable of supporting verdict of guilty of manslaughter – Whether there was evidence that any conduct of the defendants was a substantial or significant cause or substantially contributed to the death – Whether matter to be left to jury

Criminal Code s 7(1)(a), s 7(1)(c)

Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 applied
R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105 applied
R v. Summers [1990] 1 Qd R 92 distinguished

COUNSEL:

TA Fuller for the prosecution
R A Mulholland QC for Mr James
G M McGuire for Mr Tappin
AJ Kimmins for Mr Thomas

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution
Gilshenan & Luton for Mr James
Legal Aid Queensland for Mr Tappin
Ryan & Bosscher for Mr Thomas

Douglas J: At the close of the prosecution case each defendant submitted that he had no case to answer on the charge of manslaughter that each faces. The basis of the submission was, in essence, that there was a defect in the evidence such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty; see Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207, 214-215. The first submission made by all defendants was that there was no evidence that any conduct of the defendants was a substantial or significant cause of Mr Amaya’s death or substantially contributed to it; see R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105 at [4]. In making that submission they relied on the medical evidence called for the prosecution through a forensic pathologist, Dr Olumbe. I shall return to his evidence later.

It was also submitted for Mr James and Mr Tappin that the evidence did not establish that they provided assistance to Mr Thomas in the full knowledge of what he was alleged to have been doing, namely applying a choke hold to the deceased while all of them were restraining him on the ground outside the Royal Exchange Hotel, nor that they intended to assist, or consciously and knowingly provided assistance, in the commission of the offence alleged against Mr Thomas; see R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105 at [17].

Mr Fuller, for the prosecution, submitted that these were questions for the jury and needed to be set in the context of the whole of the evidence leading up to the death of Mr Amaya that was available to be considered by the…

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. James, Tappin and Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v James, Tappin and Thomas [2009] QSC 93
Case: [2009] QSC 93
Decision Date: 30 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v. James, Tappin and Thomas, the defendants faced charges of manslaughter. The dispute centred around whether the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support a guilty verdict for manslaughter. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that any conduct of the defendants was a substantial or significant cause, or substantially contributed to the death of the deceased. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the matter should be left to the jury to decide.

The court examined the evidence meticulously to ascertain if there was any conduct by the defendants that could be considered a substantial or significant cause of the death. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding that any of the defendants' conduct was a substantial or significant cause, or substantially contributed to the death. Consequently, the court concluded that the matter was not one for the jury to determine, as the evidence did not permit a guilty verdict. As such, the court directed the jury to enter not guilty verdicts against each of the defendants.

The court's reasoning was based on the requirement that for a manslaughter conviction, there must be evidence that the defendants' conduct played a substantial or significant role in causing the death. Given that the evidence did not support such a finding, the court found it appropriate to direct the jury to return not guilty verdicts. This decision underscores the importance of the jury's role in criminal trials, particularly in assessing whether the prosecution has met the burden of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

Orders of the court

JURY DIRECTED TO ENTER NOT GUILTY VERDICTS AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS

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 James, Tappin & Thomas [2009] QSC 93
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v. RICHARD ALLAN GEDDES JAMES DEAN BARRY CHRISTOPHER TAPPIN VAUGHAN THOMAS
FILE NO/S:	801/08
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Criminal trial – No case submission
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15-17, 20-24, 27-29 April 2009
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	JURY DIRECTED TO ENTER NOT GUILTY VERDICTS AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS
CATCHWORDS:	JURY – THE JURY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – IN GENERAL – RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – In criminal trial – Where evidence not capable of supporting verdict of guilty of manslaughter – Whether there was evidence that any conduct of the defendants was a substantial or significant cause or substantially contributed to the death – Whether matter to be left to jury Criminal Code s 7(1)(a), s 7(1)(c) Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 applied R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105 applied R v. Summers [1990] 1 Qd R 92 distinguished
COUNSEL:	TA Fuller for the prosecution R A Mulholland QC for Mr James G M McGuire for Mr Tappin AJ Kimmins for Mr Thomas
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution Gilshenan & Luton for Mr James Legal Aid Queensland for Mr Tappin Ryan & Bosscher for Mr Thomas