R v Knight

Case [2010] QCA 372

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knight & Ors [2010] QCA 372

PARTIES:

R
v
KNIGHT, Mark Dempsey
WILLIAMS, Wesley Robert
ROBERTSON, Wayne Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 199 of 2009
CA No 200 of 2009
CA No 201 of 2009
SC No 49 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 and 15 July 2010

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

In each appeal:

1.   The appeal against conviction is allowed;

2.   The verdict of guilty of murder is set aside;

3.   A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE –  appellants were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of Robert James Buckley – deceased was found hanging dead in a prison shower cubicle in June 1999 – death originally considered suicide but in 2006 appellants were charged with murder – appellants were committed for trial to Supreme Court in July 2009 – many witnesses considered deceased was coping with prison life – many witnesses gave evidence of animosity between deceased and appellant Williams – many witnesses gave evidence of appellants' assault on deceased – prosecution prisoner witnesses gave inconsistent evidence – pathologists' evidence could not exclude suicide – whether, on whole of the evidence, it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was guilty – whether verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION _ CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – trial was held over many weeks – evidence not optimally presented by too long a delay between alleged offending and trial – trial judge presented own solutions to issues raised by the evidence – trial judge correctly directed that facts were matters for jury to decide and they must not feel bound by judge's comments – whether judge overwhelmed jury with a certain view of the evidence – whether summing up amounted to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF PROSECUTION AND PROSECUTOR – prosecution case was that appellants liable under s 7(1) and s 302(1)(a) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) through strangling deceased with cable or towel then hanging the deceased from bars in shower – prosecution abandoned contention that cable used – judge articulated that prosecution case was appellants caused death by compression of neck causing asphyxiation by either strangling or hanging – whether change to case meant appellants were placed at tactical disadvantage causing unfairness and warranting appellate intervention

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – MAKER OF STATEMENT NOT AVAILABLE – prisoners and prison officers gave…

Continue reading R v Knight

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Knight [2010] QCA 372
Case
[2010] QCA 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Knight, the appellants were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of Robert James Buckley. The deceased was found hanging dead in a prison shower cubicle in June 1999, and his death was initially considered a suicide. However, in 2006, the appellants were charged with murder. The case was committed for trial to the Supreme Court in July 2009, where the appellants were convicted. The central issue in this appeal was whether, considering the entire body of evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was guilty of the crime charged.

The court was required to decide whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appeal highlighted several grounds, including the trial judge's summing up, the conduct of the prosecution, and the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence. The appellants argued that the trial judge's summing up might have led the jury to a certain view of the evidence, potentially overwhelming their independent judgment. The court examined whether the summing up amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the prosecution's handling of the case, including a change in the prosecution theory mid-trial, was scrutinized for any unfairness that might warrant appellate intervention. The court also considered whether certain hearsay evidence, specifically statements made by the deceased regarding his fear of one of the appellants, was admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.

The court, after careful consideration, concluded that several errors in the trial warranted the setting aside of the verdict. These included misdirections by the trial judge and issues with the prosecution's conduct that placed the appellants at a tactical disadvantage. The court determined that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence and the manner in which it was presented to the jury.

In light of these findings, the court allowed the appeals against conviction, set aside the verdict of guilty of murder, and ordered a retrial for the appellants.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each appeal:

1. The appeal against conviction is allowed;

2. The verdict of guilty of murder is set aside;

3. A retrial is ordered.

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.