R v Keys - [2012] QCA 319

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Keys [2012] QCA 319

PARTIES:

R
v
KEYS, Callum Joseph
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 91 of 2012
SC No 767 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Applegarth 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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where, at trial, the prosecution relied on two out of court statements by the appellant to police – where appellant contends that the trial judge inadequately instructed the jury about the reliance it could place on those statements – whether the jury was inadequately instructed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant contends that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied that he held the requisite intent – whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or insupportable

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258; [1975] HCA 21, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Baker[2001] QCA 326, cited
R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley SC for the appellant
A W Moynihan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Applegarth J's reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Applegarth J. I agree with his Honour’s reasons and the order which he proposes.

APPLEGARTH J: This is an appeal against a conviction for murder. The first ground of appeal relates to the adequacy of instructions to the jury about reliance on certain out of court statements. The second ground is that the verdict was unreasonable in all the circumstances.

Background

On the night of Friday, 1 May 2009 the appellant went to The Pit Nightclub at the Alexandra Hills Hotel with a group of friends. Some of them had been involved in a fight at that venue the previous Friday night. On 1 May 2009 the appellant went to the hotel with a hunting knife in a sheath tucked into his pants.

Staff at the entrance to the nightclub scanned identity cards. On Friday, 24 April 2009, the appellant had produced his own “18+ card” to enter the hotel. However, on 1 May 2009 he used a false identity card that he had obtained prior…

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 Keys

Details

AGLC: R v Keys [2012] QCA 319
Case: [2012] QCA 319
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keys, the appellant was convicted of one count of murder. The trial hinged significantly on two out-of-court statements made by the appellant to the police. The appellant appealed against his conviction, asserting that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the weight they could place on these statements and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable due to a lack of requisite intent.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury about the admissibility and weight of the appellant's statements were adequate and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence presented. The appeal's success depended on establishing that the jury's decision was flawed due to either an inadequate understanding of the evidence or an incorrect application of the law in assessing the appellant's intent.

Upon review, the court found that the trial judge had properly instructed the jury on the use of the out-of-court statements, ensuring that they understood the limitations and considerations involved in evaluating such evidence. The court also determined that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence presented. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the conviction.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction stood as determined by the jury at the original trial.

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 Keys [2012] QCA 319
PARTIES:	R v KEYS, Callum Joseph (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 91 of 2012 SC No 767 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 October 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Applegarth 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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where, at trial, the prosecution relied on two out of court statements by the appellant to police – where appellant contends that the trial judge inadequately instructed the jury about the reliance it could place on those statements – whether the jury was inadequately instructed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant contends that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied that he held the requisite intent – whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or insupportable Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258; [1975] HCA 21, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Baker[2001] QCA 326, cited R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley SC for the appellant A W Moynihan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent