R v Jason Moana Rimene - [2023] QSC 123

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jason Moana Rimene [2023] QSC 123

PARTIES:

R

v
JASON MOANA RIMENE

FILE NO/S:

BS 825/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2023

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

Jason Moana Rimene has no case to answer on the indictment and the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER – GENERALLY – where the accused is charged on the indictment with one count of murder – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of the defendant – where the defendant contends that with respect to causation, there are hypotheses available that are consistent with innocence such that the Crown has not discharged its onus – where the defendant contends that the Crown cannot negative the defence of dwelling – whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could lawfully be convicted of murder or the alternative count of manslaughter.

COUNSEL:

S Cupina for the Crown
D Walsh with N Brown for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown
Hannay Lawyers for the defendant

At the close of the prosecution case, the defendant submitted that he had no case to answer on the charge of murder or the alternative verdict of manslaughter on two bases:
(a)with respect to causation, there are hypotheses available that are consistent with innocence, such that the Crown has not discharged its onus; and/or
(a)that the Crown cannot negative the defence of dwelling.
The Crown submits that there is evidence in relation to both the defence and causation upon which the defendant could be lawfully convicted.
Where a no case submission is made the question of law to be decided is whether on the evidence as it stands the defendant could lawfully be convicted. If the answer is yes, the case must be left to the jury. If not, it is the duty of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal.[1]
[1]Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy v Hill (2016) QSC 220 at [5].
The principles which apply for a no case submission were authoritatively stated by the High Court in Doney v The Queen[2] and conveniently reiterated by Burns J in R v Goldsworthy, Goldsworthy v Hill:[3]
[2](1990) 171 CLR 207.
[3](2016) QSC 220 at [5]–[11]; which were adopted by Cooper J in R v Elkerton-Sandy [2023] QSC 32.
[5] When a no case submission is made, the question of law to be decided is ‘whether on the evidence as it stands [the accused] could lawfully be convicted’. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, the case must be left with the jury. If not, it is the duty of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jason Moana Rimene and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QSC 123
Decision Date: 6 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jason Moana Rimene, the defendant was charged with one count of murder. The dispute centred on whether the Crown had established a case to answer at the close of its case, specifically whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: whether the Crown had discharged its onus in establishing a prima facie case of murder, and whether the defendant's hypothesis of innocence concerning causation was plausible enough to warrant a no case submission. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Crown had negated the defence of dwelling. The defendant argued that the evidence presented allowed for hypotheses consistent with innocence, and thus, the Crown had not met its burden of proof.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Crown had failed to establish a prima facie case of murder. The evidence did not conclusively prove that the defendant was responsible for the death, and there were reasonable hypotheses that could support the defendant’s innocence. The court held that the defendant's hypothesis concerning causation was plausible and could not be excluded beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court determined that the Crown had not successfully negated the defence of dwelling.

Consequently, the court ruled that Jason Moana Rimene had no case to answer on the indictment of murder. The jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty on the count of murder. The court did not reach a determination on the alternative count of manslaughter as it found no case to answer on the murder charge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Jason Moana Rimene has no case to answer on the indictment and the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty.

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 Jason Moana Rimene [2023] QSC 123
PARTIES:	R v JASON MOANA RIMENE
FILE NO/S:	BS 825/22
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2023
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	Jason Moana Rimene has no case to answer on the indictment and the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER – GENERALLY – where the accused is charged on the indictment with one count of murder – where at the close of the Crown case a no case submission was made on behalf of the defendant – where the defendant contends that with respect to causation, there are hypotheses available that are consistent with innocence such that the Crown has not discharged its onus – where the defendant contends that the Crown cannot negative the defence of dwelling – whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could lawfully be convicted of murder or the alternative count of manslaughter.
COUNSEL:	S Cupina for the Crown D Walsh with N Brown for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown Hannay Lawyers for the defendant