R v Le - [2005] QCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Le; Ho & Le [2005] QCA 144

PARTIES:

R
v
LE, Ghi Van
(appellant)

R
v
HO, Toan Thai
(appellant/applicant)

R
v
LE, Linh Van
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 164 of 2004
CA No 189 of 2004
CA No 191 of 2004
SC No 406 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Each appeal against conviction is dismissed
2. In CA No 189 of 2004 the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – appellants convicted of attempted murder, doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding – limited evidence of prior relationships between appellants and complainants – one complainant and one appellant argued at a soccer match – appellants subsequently visited the house at which all complainants were present – gun battle ensued during which all complainants were shot – conflicting evidence regarding the number of shooters and the direction from which the bullet entered one of the complainants – independent witness evidence given – Crown case based on a common intention formed by the appellants to kill the complainants – whether the jury were entitled to find on the evidence that a common intention to kill at least some of the complainants had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – two appellants relied on self-defence at trial – judge directed the jury as to self-defence under s 271(2) and s 272 of the Criminal Code according to two possible versions of events – appellants submitted on appeal that a third possible version of events existed which would have required a specific and further direction under s 271(1) – whether the trial judge erred in not giving the suggested direction

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 271, s 272

R v Andreassen [2005] QCA 107; CA No 334 of 2004, 15 April 2005, distinguished
R v Corry [2005] QCA 87; CA No 306 of 2004, 1 April 2005, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the appellant, G Le
C Chowdury for the appellant, Ho
G P Long for the appellant, L Le
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the comprehensive reasons of Jerrard JA in this matter. Therein he has fully summarised all relevant evidence and dealt with the arguments raised…

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 Le

Details

AGLC: R v Le [2005] QCA 144
Case: [2005] QCA 144
Decision Date: 6 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants were convicted of attempted murder, doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding in relation to a shooting incident involving multiple complainants. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The appellants argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable due to conflicting evidence and a lack of clarity about the number of shooters and the direction of gunfire. They also contended that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding self-defence, as the jury was not given a direction based on a third version of events.

The court considered whether the jury could have reasonably found that a common intention to kill at least some of the complainants had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented. The court concluded that the jury's decision was not unreasonable or insupportable, as there was sufficient evidence to support their findings. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in their direction to the jury regarding self-defence, as there was no basis for the appellants' submission that a third version of events should have been considered.

The appeals against conviction were dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial judge did not err in their directions to the jury. The convictions and sentences were therefore upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Each appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. In CA No 189 of 2004 the application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Le; Ho & Le [2005] QCA 144
PARTIES:	R v LE, Ghi Van (appellant) R v HO, Toan Thai (appellant/applicant) R v LE, Linh Van (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 164 of 2004 CA No 189 of 2004 CA No 191 of 2004 SC No 406 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2005
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Each appeal against conviction is dismissed 2. In CA No 189 of 2004 the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – appellants convicted of attempted murder, doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding – limited evidence of prior relationships between appellants and complainants – one complainant and one appellant argued at a soccer match – appellants subsequently visited the house at which all complainants were present – gun battle ensued during which all complainants were shot – conflicting evidence regarding the number of shooters and the direction from which the bullet entered one of the complainants – independent witness evidence given – Crown case based on a common intention formed by the appellants to kill the complainants – whether the jury were entitled to find on the evidence that a common intention to kill at least some of the complainants had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – two appellants relied on self-defence at trial – judge directed the jury as to self-defence under s 271(2) and s 272 of the Criminal Code according to two possible versions of events – appellants submitted on appeal that a third possible version of events existed which would have required a specific and further direction under s 271(1) – whether the trial judge erred in not giving the suggested direction Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 271, s 272 R v Andreassen [2005] QCA 107; CA No 334 of 2004, 15 April 2005, distinguished R v Corry [2005] QCA 87; CA No 306 of 2004, 1 April 2005, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC for the appellant, G Le C Chowdury for the appellant, Ho G P Long for the appellant, L Le M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent