R v Lafaele - [2018] QCA 42

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lafaele [2018] QCA 42

PARTIES:

R
v
LAFAELE, Isaac Junior Lemalu
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 363 of 2016
SC No 53 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 15 December 2016 (Henry J)

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and North J

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS - where the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder – whether on the evidence it was possible to infer intention because of intoxication – whether the appellant’s capacities were so affected that he was deprived of the capacity to form an intention – whether the verdict was unreasonable because of the appellant’s intoxication

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury – whether the onus of proof in s 24 defence of mistake of fact rests with the prosecution or the defendant – where the respondent contended that s 304(7) of the CriminalCode had the effect of shifting the onus of proof onto an accused with respect to, not only provocation, but also mistake of fact when, as in this case, the circumstance of the asserted provocation are intertwined with a mistake of fact – whether the s 24 defence mistake of fact alters the onus of proof of the defence of provocation in s 304 of the Criminal Code

Criminal Code (Qld), s 24, s 304, s 668E

Brimblecombe v Duncan, Ex parte Duncan [1958] Qd R 8, considered
Cesan v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 358; [2008] HCA 52, considered
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; [1985] HCA 43, considered
Heaslop v Burton [1902] St R Qd 259, considered
Loveday v Ayre and Ayre; Ex parte Ayre [1955] St R Qd 264, considered
R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, considered
R v Perham[2016] QCA 123, considered
R v Sheehan [2001] 1 Qd R 198; [1999] QCA 461, considered
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, considered

COUNSEL:

AW Collins for the appellant
M Cowen QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of North J and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by North J and with the reasons given by his Honour.
NORTH J:
Introduction
The appellant was convicted of murder of Gavin McLean following a trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of Cairns…

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 Lafaele

Details

AGLC: R v Lafaele [2018] QCA 42
Case: [2018] QCA 42
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lafaele, was convicted of murder and appealed against his conviction. The appeal was based on the contention that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, particularly in light of his intoxication at the time of the offence. Lafaele argued that his capacities were so affected that he was deprived of the capacity to form an intention to commit murder. The court was also asked to consider whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof in relation to the defence of mistake of fact under s 24 of the Criminal Code.

The legal issues before the court involved the impact of intoxication on the capacity to form an intention, the correctness of the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof in relation to the defence of mistake of fact, and whether the directions shifted the onus of proof onto the accused. The court had to determine if the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence, particularly focusing on the appellant's state of intoxication, and whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the relevant legal principles.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant's intoxication deprived him of the capacity to form the necessary intention for murder. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof in relation to the defence of mistake of fact. The judge's directions were consistent with the statutory provisions and did not shift the onus of proof onto the accused. The court determined that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal against conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 Lafaele [2018] QCA 42
PARTIES:	R v LAFAELE, Isaac Junior Lemalu (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 363 of 2016 SC No 53 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 15 December 2016 (Henry J)
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and North J
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS - where the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder – whether on the evidence it was possible to infer intention because of intoxication – whether the appellant’s capacities were so affected that he was deprived of the capacity to form an intention – whether the verdict was unreasonable because of the appellant’s intoxication CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury – whether the onus of proof in s 24 defence of mistake of fact rests with the prosecution or the defendant – where the respondent contended that s 304(7) of the CriminalCode had the effect of shifting the onus of proof onto an accused with respect to, not only provocation, but also mistake of fact when, as in this case, the circumstance of the asserted provocation are intertwined with a mistake of fact – whether the s 24 defence mistake of fact alters the onus of proof of the defence of provocation in s 304 of the Criminal Code Criminal Code (Qld), s 24, s 304, s 668E Brimblecombe v Duncan, Ex parte Duncan [1958] Qd R 8, considered Cesan v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 358; [2008] HCA 52, considered He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; [1985] HCA 43, considered Heaslop v Burton [1902] St R Qd 259, considered Loveday v Ayre and Ayre; Ex parte Ayre [1955] St R Qd 264, considered R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, considered R v Perham[2016] QCA 123, considered R v Sheehan [2001] 1 Qd R 198; [1999] QCA 461, considered Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, considered
COUNSEL:	AW Collins for the appellant M Cowen QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent