SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Lennox [2007] QCA 383
PARTIES:
R
v
LENNOX, Craig Anthony
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 284 of 2006
SC No 792 of 2005DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
9 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 October 2007
JUDGES:
Williams and Holmes JJA and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of murder and stealing – where appellant pleaded guilty at trial to stealing and manslaughter – where plea of guilty to manslaughter not accepted – whether evidence led at trial could support a finding of the relevant intent – whether counsel for the appellant at trial failed to properly advise the appellant in relation to entering a plea of guilty to manslaughter
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where police interview was conducted with the appellant – whether objection should have been taken to the admission of video evidence of interview in circumstances where there was not strict compliance with s 249 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 – whether there was substantial compliance when advising the appellant of his rights
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 (Qld), s 249, s 253
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 (Qld), reg 34(1)Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, cited
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619, cited
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234, applied
R v Ali [2001] QCA 331, cited
R v Box & Martin [2001] QCA 272, cited
R v Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald 95; 106 ER 873, cited
R v Ciantar [2006] VSCA 263, cited
R v Makin (1893) 14 LR(NSW) 1, applied
R v Rice (1996) 2 VR 406, applied
R v Ryan (1906) St R Qd 15, cited
R v Wehlow (2001) 122 A Crim R 63; [2001] QCA 193, citedCOUNSEL:
J A Griffin QC, with D F Mylne, for the appellant (pro bono)
M J Copley for the respondentSOLICITORS:
No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court of murder. He appeals against his conviction and was given leave to amend his grounds of appeal so that they read:
"1.That the conviction of the appellant on 21st September 2006 was unsafe and unsatisfactory and the verdict ought to be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.
2.That the…
Continue reading R v Lennox
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lennox [2007] QCA 383
- Case
- [2007] QCA 383
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the appeal and examined the evidence led at trial, including the police interview video. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of the relevant intent for murder, and that the trial judge was correct to reject the plea of manslaughter. The court also found that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 when the police interview was conducted, and that the video evidence was properly admitted. The court dismissed the appeal, and the conviction of murder was upheld.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction of murder be upheld. The appellant's argument that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable was rejected, and the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of the relevant intent for murder. The court also found that the trial judge was correct to reject the plea of manslaughter, and that the video evidence of the police interview was properly admitted. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of murder was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.