R v Jones

[2015] QCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jones [2015] QCA 161

PARTIES:

R
v
JONES, Horace Larenzo Lyken
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 321 of 2014
SC No 14 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Unreported, 2 December 2014

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and North and Henry JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where appellant found guilty of one count of murder – where the defence sought to lead psychiatric opinion evidence – where the opinion evidence was held inadmissible during the trial – whether the expert was qualified to provide opinion evidence on the appellant’s emotional state and resultant behaviour – whether the psychiatric evidence to be relied on as expert opinion evidence was inadmissible – whether the appeal should be allowed

Criminal Code (Qld), s 271, s 272, s 304, s 304B
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B

Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486; [1960] HCA 42, considered
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75, followed
R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, considered
R v Pollock[2009] QCA 268, cited
R v Runjanjic (1991) 56 SASR 114; [1991] SASC 2951, considered
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642; [1961] HCA 65, considered
Roach v The Queen (2001) 242 CLR 610; [2011] HCA 12, considered
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant
M Cowen QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of North J and the order he proposes.

1. NORTH J:  The appellant was on 2 December 2014 convicted by a jury of the murder of his mother on 29 June 2012.  He has appealed that conviction and the sole ground is one of law, that a miscarriage of justice occurred as a consequence of a ruling by the trial judge that the evidence of a psychiatrist sought to be led in the appellant’s case as expert opinion evidence was inadmissible.[1]

THE ISSUE AT TRIAL

[1]Amended Notice of Appeal filed 15 May 2015; s 668E(1) Criminal Code.

1. At trial it was not in contest that the deceased died as a result of the infliction of multiple wounds upon her by the appellant.[2] Forensic pathology evidence was that the deceased sustained approximately 31 wounds of which some 17 were sustained to her head and neck. Because of the nature of some wounds the evidence was that they may have been sustained as a result…