R v Kalf - [2000] QCA 499

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kalf [2000] QCA 499

PARTIES: R
v
KALF, John Johannes
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 134 of 2000
SC No 546 of 1999
SC No 549 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 8 December 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 20 November 2000

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Williams J, Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – attempted murder conviction – appellant claims verdict against the weight of evidence – where appellant gave co-accused knife used in attack - where jury did not accept appellant’s account to police that he was not aware of co-accused’s intention to kill and that he was not involved in the attack

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – Whether trial judge erred in declining to discharge jury following prejudicial and inaccurate media coverage during trial – where judge gave firm directions regarding media coverage

COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court at Townsville on 13 April 2000 of one count of burglary and stealing (count 1), one count of burglary with intent (count 2) and one count of attempted murder (count 3).

The appellant, who is unrepresented, appeals against those convictions, first contending that the primary judge should have discharged the jury following prejudicial and inaccurate media coverage broadcast during the trial of the appellant and, second, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

His co-accused, Ronald Cummings, originally appealed against his conviction on similar grounds but has since abandoned his appeal.

In his oral and written submissions, the appellant limits his appeal to count 3 (attempted murder): he admits count 1 and as to count 2 claims that he went to the complainant's flat with the intention of stealing his video recorder and alcohol.

The verdict is against the weight of the evidence

It is convenient to deal first with the appellant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. This necessitates a consideration of the evidence.

The complainant said that he first met the appellant and Cummings in the early hours of 28 February 1999; they were wet and the complainant invited them to his flat where they changed their clothes; he offered them a scotch whisky and gave them money to purchase cigarettes and Coke at a nearby shop. When they returned,…

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 Kalf

Details

AGLC: R v Kalf [2000] QCA 499
Case: [2000] QCA 499
Decision Date: 8 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kalf, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction for attempted murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence. The jury had not accepted the appellant’s account that he was unaware of his co-accused’s intention to kill and that he was not involved in the attack, despite him giving the co-accused the knife used in the attack. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge should have discharged the jury after prejudicial and inaccurate media coverage during the trial. The court was required to determine whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, and whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury following the media coverage.

The court held that the jury’s verdict was open to them, and it was not for the court to substitute its view for that of the jury. The evidence presented at trial showed that the appellant had given the co-accused the knife used in the attack, and that he had been involved in the planning of the attack. The court found that the appellant’s account was not credible and that the jury was entitled to reject it. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in declining to discharge the jury following the media coverage, as the judge had given firm directions regarding the media coverage and the jury had followed them. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for attempted 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

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 Kalf [2000] QCA 499
PARTIES:	R v KALF, John Johannes (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 134 of 2000 SC No 546 of 1999 SC No 549 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2000
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams J, Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – attempted murder conviction – appellant claims verdict against the weight of evidence – where appellant gave co-accused knife used in attack - where jury did not accept appellant’s account to police that he was not aware of co-accused’s intention to kill and that he was not involved in the attack CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – Whether trial judge erred in declining to discharge jury following prejudicial and inaccurate media coverage during trial – where judge gave firm directions regarding media coverage
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent