R v Laycock & Stokes

Case [1999] QCA 307
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 307
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C A No 465 of 1998 C A No 487 of 1998

Brisbane

[R v Laycock & Stokes]

THE QUEEN

v

GLEN DOUGLAS LAYCOCK Appellant

and
LOU ANTHONY STOKES

(Applicant) Appellant

McMurdo P
McPherson JA

Atkinson J

Judgment delivered 6 August 1999

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

IN RESPECT OF C.A. NO. 465 OF 1998, THE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
IS DISMISSED.
IN RESPECT OF C.A. NO. 487 OF 1998, THE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
IS DISMISSED AND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST

SENTENCE IS REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS: 

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - appeal against conviction for murder, deceased killed by fatal blow to head with baseball bat after evening of prolonged violence inflicted by members of motorcycle club - whether conviction against ‘batter’ unsafe and unsatisfactory - whether judge gave adequate warnings about evidence of co-offenders who testifed for Crown - whether Crown established that blows at side of road caused death - whether judge gave adequate directions as to causation - whether judge gave adequate directions as to drawing inferences

Criminal Code, s293, s302(1)(a), s632
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s13A
Charlie v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 809; Crofts v R (1996)
186  CLR 427; Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR

79; R v Cheshire [1991] 3 AllER 670; R v Jeffrey CA No 154 of 1997, 14 August 1997; R v Knight (1992) 66 ALJR 860; Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 considered

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - whether Crown should have recalled witness for further cross-examination after tactical decision of defence - whether defence should have been allowed to cross-examine witness as to character of another witness

R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; R v Brown and Hedley [1861-73] All ER Rep Ext 215; R v Burns CA No 427 of 1998, 28 May 1999; R v Foley CA No 136 of 1998, 11 August 1998; R v Richardson; R v Longman [1968] 2 AllER 761; R v Watson 171 ER 591; Wakely v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 321, considered

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - whether direction in terms of R v Woollin required

Criminal Justice Act 1967 (UK)
R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 QdR 413, approved; R v Woollin
[1998] 4 All ER 103, considered

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - whether judge should have put provocation to jury - whether judge should have allowed jury to consider aiding in self-defence

Criminal Code, s304

Bullard v The Queen [1957] AC 635; R v Hunter [1988] 1 QdR 663; R v Sabri Isa [1952] StRQd 269; R v Sreckovic [1973] WAR 85; Van…

Continue reading R v Laycock & Stokes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Laycock and Stokes [1999] QCA 307
Case
[1999] QCA 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case, Laycock and Stokes, were convicted of murder and manslaughter respectively in relation to the death of Darryl Lewis, who was killed by a fatal blow to the head with a baseball bat after an evening of violence by members of the Finks Motorcycle Club. Laycock was convicted of murder and Stokes of manslaughter. Both appeal against their convictions, and Stokes also seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. The central issues for the court to decide were whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, whether the judge adequately warned the jury about the evidence of co-offenders, whether the Crown established that the blows at the side of the road caused the death, and whether the judge provided adequate directions as to causation and the drawing of inferences. The court considered the evidence and submissions made by the appellants, including the argument that the prosecution did not establish that the actions at the side of the road contributed significantly to the death. The court also examined the directions given by the judge to the jury regarding the test for causation and the drawing of inferences from the evidence. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found that the convictions were safe and satisfactory, and that the judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The court therefore dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 25 November 1996, about 18 members of the Finks Motorcycle Club invaded a property at 211 Lance Road, Maclean in order to retrieve a custom-built Harley Davidson motorcycle, the property of a member of the Club, Stephen Cranney. Before the night was out, Darryl Lewis, who lived on the property was dead. The appellants were charged with his murder and after a trial lasting over two weeks Laycock was convicted of murder and Stokes of manslaughter. Both appeal against their convictions and Stokes seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. The facts The trial transcript reads like a B-grade film script, but the violence was real and the ending truly tragic. The most significant witnesses were Club members Stephen Cranney and Jeff Nelson. Stephen Cranney gave evidence that his custom-built Harley Davidson was stolen in February 1995, the night before a bike show organised by the Finks Motorcycle Club. On 25 November 1996, Cranney received information from a member of another club that his motor bike was in the possession of brothers, Scott and Darryl Lewis. Their address was ascertained and a reconnaissance made of the property in daylight and again at dusk. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., Cranney and approximately 17 other male members of the Finks Motorcycle Club, including the appellants, gathered together in five vehicles at a park near the Lewis' property. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Club, Steve Avis, whose elected role involved keeping the peace, informed the gathering that no-one was to be killed. One of the vehicles had hand guns and a sawn-off shotgun in the boot. They travelled in convoy to the Lewis' property to retrieve the bike. The Lewis brothers were not home, but Paul Schultz, who shared their accommodation, was. Schultz locked up the dogs and was detained. Stokes and others ensured he did not escape and ransacked the house in search of keys to a storage shed believed to hold the bike. A promising set of keys was located. The Lewis brothers returned home to be confronted by Club members emerging from hiding. Scott Lewis gave evidence that he grabbed an iron bar but dropped it after Cranney pointed a gun at him. Cranney identified himself and his purpose and Scott Lewis confirmed the keys which had been found were to a storage site where the bike was held. He knew the location but it was not a 24 hour facility and the bike could not be retrieved without police involvement at that time of night. Laycock gave Scott two swift blows with an aluminium baseball bat to the knee and the side of the face, fracturing his knee and skull and causing him to drop to the floor. Scott was apparently unconscious for a time and was unable to get to his feet to assist his brother Darryl. When he regained consciousness he saw five to seven men bashing his brother Darryl, two or three were armed with metre long objects and five or six others were kicking and punching him. Darryl continued to be struck after he had fallen to the ground on all fours on the back, arms, kidneys and head until he had no fight left in him. When Darryl was forced into the back seat of his own white Commodore sedan, he was more subdued and the top and back of his head appeared wet.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant next submits that the case is unsafe and unsatisfactory because the prosecution did not establish that anything that occurred on the side of the road contributed significantly to the death of Darryl Lewis. The submissions made merged with ground of appeal (6)(b), that the learned trial judge erred as to the proper test for causation, and can be conveniently dealt with together. (i) The evidence Dr Naylor's evidence was that the cause of death was head injuries which included the injuries to the scalp, skull, brain and face, but death was a result of all the injuries to him, including the rib fractures; although asphyxia following inhalation of blood from the collapse of the base of the skull and central structure of the face may well have played an important role in causing death, it was not necessarily the only mechanism whereby the head injuries led to his death. Dr Naylor was unable to say whether death was caused by the injuries received at the house or outside the car: the worse his condition in the car, the more likely the injuries at the house were the cause of death. The appellant submitted that the blood splatter patterns at the side of the road and on the vehicle do not support the evidence of Nelson that the deceased was struck on the head with the baseball bat outside the car. The evidence as to blood gives no real assistance one way or the other on this point. Schultz's evidence is that Darryl had suffered significant injuries at the house but was alive and offering resistance in the car, the car stopped, the front passenger had a baseball bat, both passengers took Darryl out of the car, he heard the sound of a bat hitting something, and Darryl was returned to the car unconscious, briefly regained consciousness, and died. If the jury were satisfied that the appellant Laycock was the wielder of the bat outside the car; that Darryl was very much alive and actively resisting in the car until he was hit with the bat by Laycock and rendered unconscious with no significant improvement to his condition prior to death, they were entitled to find the necessary causation established beyond reasonable doubt. Nelson's account adds support to a causal connection between Darryl's death and Laycock's actions with the bat. There was evidence which the jury could properly accept that the appellant hit Darryl with the baseball bat outside the car and that this was a substantial cause of his subsequent death. Mr Kimmins submits that the learned trial judge erred in his summing up to the jury as to the proper test for causation. His Honour read to the jury s 293 of the Criminal Code and stated: "The test is whether you are satisfied that the batter's acts after Lewis was pulled out of the car contributed significantly to Lewis' death. It does not have to be established that the acts were the sole cause, but they have to contribute significantly. You do not have to evaluate competing causes for death or to decide that there was a main cause or a dominant cause. The test is a significant contribution and significant contribution conveys the notion of a contribution which is more than negligible. So that you have to have a significant contribution, something which is more than negligible, but you do not have to be satisfied in terms of the discrimination between main or dominant or other causes."

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.