SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 274
PARTIES:
R
v
LACEY, Dionne Matthew
(applicant/appellant)R
v
LACEY, Dionne Matthew
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 114 of 2009
CA No 148 of 2009
SC No 920 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
11 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 July 2009; 16 July 2009
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, McMurdo P, Keane, Muir and Chesterman JJA
Joint reasons for judgment of Chief Justice and Keane, Muir and Chesterman JJA; separate reasons of McMurdo P, dissenting in partORDERS:
In Appeal No 114 of 2009:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
In Appeal No 148 of 2009:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Order that the sentence imposed at first instance be varied to the extent that a sentence of 11 years imprisonment be substituted for the original sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where appellant, after trial, was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – where appellant sought to rely upon s 25 and ss 271, 272 and 273 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (the Code) – where facts relied on to invoke ss 271, 272 and 273 were the same as those relied on for the purposes of s 25 – whether primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury upon the operation of s25 of the Code
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant was tried with Jade Lacey, his brother and co-accused – where primary judge summed up the case against Jade Lacey before moving to the case against the appellant – whether primary judge adequately directed the jury as to the application of ss 24, 271, 272 and 273 of the Code to the appellant’s case – whether primary judge failed to instruct upon the definition of provocation and its application to the appellant’s case – whether primary judge failed to put the appellant’s case to the jury, identify the real issues applicable to his case or relate those issues to the relevant law and facts
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where a person claiming to be a juror telephoned the appellant's solicitors and informed them that another juror’s brother had been shot and that that juror "had a great deal of control and influence over the jury" – where juror was advised to contact primary judge’s associate and did so – where associate directed juror to s 70 Jury Act 1995 (Qld) – where there…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lacey; ex parte Attorney-General and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QCA 274
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the operation of section 25 of the Code, whether the summing up adequately covered the application of sections 24, 271, 272, and 273 of the Code to the appellant's case, and whether the jury's verdict was tainted by bias. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and the principles that should guide the Court of Appeal in exercising its discretion under section 669A of the Code.
The court found that the primary judge had not erred in failing to direct the jury on the operation of section 25 of the Code, and that the summing up was adequate. The court also held that there was no evidence of juror bias that would impugn the verdict. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the primary judge had not wrongly characterised the appellant's conduct and culpability, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. However, the court found that the sentence was inadequate and varied it from 10 years to 11 years imprisonment.
The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, the application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed, the appeal against sentence be allowed, and the sentence be varied to 11 years imprisonment.
Orders
Orders of the court
In Appeal No 114 of 2009:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
In Appeal No 148 of 2009:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Order that the sentence imposed at first instance be varied to the extent that a sentence of 11 years imprisonment be substituted for the original sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
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.