R v Logan

[2012] QCA 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Logan [2012] QCA 210

PARTIES:

R
v
LOGAN, Robert Ian
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 77 of 2011
SC No 255 of 2011
SC No 617 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2012

JUDGES:

White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA, Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of murder after a trial – where the jury rejected the defence of insanity and the partial defence of diminished responsibility – where the appellant contended that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and contrary to law – whether upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 26, s 27, s 304A, s 564, s 668E

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70, considered
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68, cited
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; [1998] HCA 68, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, followed
R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128, cited
R v Saffron (1988) 17 NSWLR 395, considered
R v Trifyllis [1998] QCA 416, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, followed

COUNSEL:

D MacKenzie for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. WHITE JA: On 4 April 2011 the appellant was convicted of murdering Ben Huntingford on 21 June 2006 after a 10 day trial.  The sole ground of appeal is that:

“[t]he conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory and contrary to law.”[1]

It may be taken that this ground seeks to encapsulate s 668E of the Criminal Code namely:

“… the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable, or can not be supported having regard to the evidence…”

[1]AR 1182.

1. It was not in dispute at the trial that the appellant killed the deceased.  The prosecution case was that the appellant, fuelled by the voluntary consumption of alcohol and/or drugs, killed in an intoxicated frenzy.  The defence case was that the appellant was not of sound mind at the relevant time, or alternatively, that when he formed the intention to kill he was substantially deprived of his capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts involved by virtue…