R v Lace - [2002] QCA 205

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lace [2002] QCA 205

PARTIES:

R
v
LACE, Allan James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 346 of 2001
SC No 102 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Helman and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – PUBLICITY - where appellant convicted of murder – where newspaper article discloses that appellant’s prior conviction for this offence overturned by the Court of Appeal – where primary judge directed jury about article - whether primary judge should have discharged jury

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – DIRECTIONS - where appellant admitted shooting victim – where defence contended appellant did not have intention to cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to the victim – where defence contended appellant was affected by heroin and mistakenly thought the revolver was unloaded and killed the victim - whether primary judge’s directions on grievous bodily harm could lead jury to conclude intention was not in doubt –where primary judge’s directions made clear intention was a critical issue – where primary judge did not misdirect jury

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – DIRECTIONS -
where evidence of a recorded conversation between the appellant and others – where appellant refers to pleading guilty to manslaughter “if the worst comes to the worst” - where primary judge directed that conversation is "totally inconsistent" with appellant’s explanation of an accident – where direction given while summing up evidence of the appellant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting, relevant to intention - where primary judge compared the actions and statements of the appellant after the shooting to his later explanation to police and evidence at trial – where primary judge emphasised that the jury could reject judge's view of the evidence – where primary judge did not misdirect jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – POWER TO MAKE ORDERS AS TO TIME COUNTED AS PART OF SENTENCE - where applicant has been continuously in custody since he was first sentenced to life imprisonment on 1 November 2000 – where on 30 January 2001 appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment concurrent with life sentence for offence of breaking and entering – where appeal against conviction for murder was allowed on 4 July 2001 - where primary judge declared 524 days imprisonment served during period from 9 July 1999 until 30…

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 Lace

Details

AGLC: R v Lace [2002] QCA 205
Case: [2002] QCA 205
Decision Date: 14 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lace involved the appellant who was convicted of murder and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The case raised issues concerning the discharge and excusal of the jury from attendance, the adequacy of the primary judge's directions to the jury, and the calculation of time served towards the sentence. The appeal was heard by the court which had to determine if the primary judge should have discharged the jury, whether there was a misdirection or non-direction in the judge's instructions, and if the primary judge erred in calculating the time served towards the sentence.

The primary issues before the court were whether the primary judge should have discharged the jury following a newspaper article that disclosed the appellant's prior conviction for the same offence had been overturned by the Court of Appeal, if the primary judge misdirected the jury with respect to the appellant's intention and state of mind at the time of the shooting, and whether the primary judge correctly calculated the time the appellant had already served towards his sentence. The court examined the directions given by the primary judge to the jury and whether they could lead to a conclusion that the appellant's intention was not in doubt. Additionally, the court assessed if the primary judge's comparison of the appellant's actions and statements after the shooting with his later explanation to the police and evidence at trial was appropriate and whether it amounted to a misdirection.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in not discharging the jury as the directions given were adequate and did not misdirect the jury on the issue of intention. The court held that the primary judge did not misdirect the jury on the issue of the appellant's intention and state of mind at the time of the shooting. Furthermore, the court held that the primary judge correctly calculated the time the appellant had already served towards his sentence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the primary judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and did not misdirect them on the issue of the appellant's intention and state of mind at the time of the shooting. The court also held that the primary judge correctly calculated the time the appellant had already served towards his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Lace [2002] QCA 205
PARTIES:	R v LACE, Allan James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 346 of 2001 SC No 102 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Helman and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – PUBLICITY - where appellant convicted of murder – where newspaper article discloses that appellant’s prior conviction for this offence overturned by the Court of Appeal – where primary judge directed jury about article - whether primary judge should have discharged jury APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – DIRECTIONS - where appellant admitted shooting victim – where defence contended appellant did not have intention to cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to the victim – where defence contended appellant was affected by heroin and mistakenly thought the revolver was unloaded and killed the victim - whether primary judge’s directions on grievous bodily harm could lead jury to conclude intention was not in doubt –where primary judge’s directions made clear intention was a critical issue – where primary judge did not misdirect jury APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – DIRECTIONS - where evidence of a recorded conversation between the appellant and others – where appellant refers to pleading guilty to manslaughter “if the worst comes to the worst” - where primary judge directed that conversation is "totally inconsistent" with appellant’s explanation of an accident – where direction given while summing up evidence of the appellant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting, relevant to intention - where primary judge compared the actions and statements of the appellant after the shooting to his later explanation to police and evidence at trial – where primary judge emphasised that the jury could reject judge's view of the evidence – where primary judge did not misdirect jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – POWER TO MAKE ORDERS AS TO TIME COUNTED AS PART OF SENTENCE - where applicant has been continuously in custody since he was first sentenced to life imprisonment on 1 November 2000 – where on 30 January 2001 appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment concurrent with life sentence for offence of breaking and entering – where appeal against conviction for murder was allowed on 4 July 2001 - where primary judge declared 524 days imprisonment served during period from 9 July 1999 until 30…