SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Lacey & Lacey [2011] QCA 386
PARTIES:
R
v
LACEY, Dionne Matthew
(appellant/applicant)R
v
LACEY, Jade Michael
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 91 of 2010
CA No 218 of 2010
CA No 92 of 2010
CA No 219 of 2010
DC No 2783 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeals against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
23 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
21 July 2011
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, Fraser JA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
In CA No 91 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 92 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 218 of 2010:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
In CA No 219 of 2010:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – OF COUNTS – BY STATUTE – SAME FACTS OR SERIES OF OFFENCES OF SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER – where the appellants were found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, extortion, threatening violence at night, torture, unlawful wounding with intent and deprivation of liberty – where all of the offences were committed against the same complainant, Matthews, with the exception of the charge of threatening violence, which was committed against the complainant, Gale – where the appellants argued that the charge of threatening violence was improperly joined – where Matthews’ account of the events constituting count 3 was an integral part of his narrative of the remaining counts – where neither defence counsel sought a separate trial – where the appellants argued there was a risk that the jury impermissibly used Gale’s evidence to bolster Matthews’ credibility – where both defence counsel used Gale’s evidence to attack Matthews’ credibility – whether there was an improper joinder of the count of threatening violence on the indictment
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL COUNTS – where, in the alternative to an improper joinder, the appellants argued that the trial judge failed to warn the jury against impermissible propensity reasoning arising from the joinder of the charge of threatening violence – whether a warning in relation to propensity reasoning was required
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellants argued that a Markuleski direction was required – where the trial judge raised the issue of a Markuleski direction but no party sought such a direction to be made – whether a Markuleski direction ought to have been given
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellants argued that the prosecutor’s address to the jury went further than his foreshadowed intention to…
Continue reading R v Lacey & Lacey
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lacey & Lacey [2011] QCA 386
- Case
- [2011] QCA 386
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants argued that the trial judge improperly joined the charge of threatening violence on the indictment, and that this may have led to impermissible propensity reasoning by the jury. They further argued that the trial judge failed to warn the jury against such reasoning and that a Markuleski direction should have been given. The appellants also contended that the prosecutor’s address to the jury went beyond relying on lies told by one of the appellants as going only to credit, and that an Edwards direction should have been given. Additionally, they argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to impermissible propensity reasoning arising out of uncharged acts of which evidence was given. The court found that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and that no misdirection or non-direction occurred.
The appellants further argued that the trial judge gave an insufficient accomplice direction in relation to a witness, Bowley, and that certain evidence was inadmissible because it was ambiguous and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. They also contended that the trial judge's directions were inadequate to enable the jury to properly consider their verdicts in respect of each appellant. The court held that no further accomplice direction was required and that the evidence was admissible. The court also found that the trial judge's directions were adequate.
Finally, the appellants argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
ORDERS:
In CA No 91 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 92 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 218 of 2010:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
In CA No 219 of 2010:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
In CA No 91 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 92 of 2010:
1. Appeal dismissed.
In CA No 218 of 2010:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
In CA No 219 of 2010:
1. 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.