R v LM

Case [2004] QCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LM [2004] QCA 192

PARTIES:

R
v
LM
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2003
CA No 314 of 2003

DC No 692 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 April 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal allowed
2.  Verdicts of guilty set aside

3.  New trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – IN GENERAL – where appellant convicted of torture of one of her children and unlawful wounding of two of her children through the acts of medical professionals – where prosecution alleged appellant had condition known as Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or factitious disorder by proxy – whether general evidence given by psychiatrist as to Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy admissible – whether evidence as to Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy was part of an organised or recognised reliable body of knowledge or experience – whether prejudicial effect of evidence outweighed probative value

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – IN GENERAL – where prosecution alleged appellant harmed children by presenting them for unnecessary medical treatment – whether evidence of doctors who treated children that in their opinion this was a case of "Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy" was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant filmed by surveillance camera – whether witnesses could describe own observations of what was recorded on the surveillance video

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted on count of torture of child – where charged with respect to 21 month period, relying on three different particulars – whether jury had to be unanimous in their verdict with respect to at least one particularised act on one particularised occasion – whether learned trial judge's redirection to jury was flawed in that it directed that they may be satisfied of the appellant's guilt because of a combination of particularised acts

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 320A

Director of Public Prosecutions v A & BC Chewing Gum Ltd [1968] 1 QB 159, cited
Farrell v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 286, cited
KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417, cited
Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94, cited
Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269, cited
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316, considered
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461, cited
R v Boreman [2000] 1 All ER 307, cited
R v Chard (1971) 56 Crim App R 268, cited
R v Lupien

Continue reading R v LM

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v LM [2004] QCA 192
Case
[2004] QCA 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of torture of one of her children, and two counts of unlawful wounding of two of her children through the acts of medical professionals. The conviction arose from the appellant presenting her children for unnecessary medical treatment, leading medical professionals to administer treatment that caused harm to the children. The appellant appealed against her conviction, raising several grounds, including the admissibility of evidence of "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" and the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The central legal issues in this appeal were the admissibility of expert evidence concerning "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" and the sufficiency of the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appellant contended that the expert evidence was not part of an organised or recognised reliable body of knowledge or experience, and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The appellant also argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury by allowing them to find the appellant guilty based on a combination of particularised acts, rather than requiring unanimity as to at least one particularised act on one particularised occasion.

The Court found that the expert evidence concerning "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" was not part of an organised or recognised reliable body of knowledge or experience and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, rendering it inadmissible. Additionally, the Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were flawed, as they did not require the jury to be unanimous in their verdict with respect to at least one particularised act on one particularised occasion. The Court concluded that these errors were significant enough to warrant a new trial.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the verdicts of guilty were set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The Court's decision highlights the importance of the admissibility of expert evidence and the need for clear and accurate directions to the jury in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Verdicts of guilty set aside

3. New trial ordered

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.