Legal Research
Cases
R v Lowrie and Ross

R v Lowrie and Ross

Case [1999] QCA 305 6 August 1999

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 305
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane
[R v Lowrie & Ross]
T H E Q U E E N
v
KERRY CATHERINE LOWRIE and
KERRI-LEAH MICHELLE ROSS
Appellants
McPherson JA
Davies JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 6 August 1999
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.
BOTH APPEALS ALLOWED. CONVICTIONS AND VERDICTS TO BE SET ASIDE
AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THE CASE OF EACH APPELLANT.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure - Courses of evidence, statements and addresses - Summing up - Adjournment, stay of proceedings or Order Restraining proceedings.
DPP (Qld) v Wentworth (CA no 4118/1996; Sept 10 1996)
R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296
R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1
R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300
R v Jeffrey (CA no 154/1997; 19 Dec 1997 unrep)
R v Webb, ex p Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd R 275
Rowley (1948) 32 Cr App R 147
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41

Counsel: Mr A Rafter for the appellant Lowrie
Mr P Callaghan for the appellant Ross
Mr D Bullock for the Crown
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 13 July 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA
Judgment delivered 6 August 1999

These are appeals by Kerry Catherine Lowrie and Kerri-Leah Michelle Ross against their convictions on 26 February 1999 for the murder of Grace Madonna Heathcote after a joint trial in the Supreme Court at Cairns. Ms Heathcote, who was also known as Jane, was found dead in a motel room late on the night of 4 July 1995. At the trial, evidence of the forensic pathologist was to the effect that death had been caused by rupture of the heart and tearing of the liver, part of which was described as "pulped", which was consistent with the victim having been jumped or stamped on, but with unusual severity. There were some 14 or more rib fractures, as well as fractures of or beside the breast bone; the victim's Adam's apple and hyoid bone were broken, as were the nose and nasal bones, and there were extensive lacerations, bruising and abrasions on parts of the face, checks, chin, forehead, scalp, ears, neck and chest. The victim had before her death obviously been subjected to a severe beating by one or more assailants.
She was a prostitute, who had been summoned to the motel by a telephone call from a woman who had booked the room and made an appointment with Ms Heathcote to be given a massage there. The woman in question was the appellant Kerry Catherine Lowrie, who is also known as Skye. She was apparently a stranger to the victim, who was, however, known to her co-appellant Kerri Ross, who was also a prostitute.…

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 Lowrie and Ross

Details

AGLC: R v Lowrie and Ross [1999] QCA 305
Case: [1999] QCA 305
Decision Date: 6/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an appeal by Kerry Catherine Lowrie and Kerri-Leah Michelle Ross against their convictions for the murder of Grace Madonna Heathcote. The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury that statements made by one appellant were only admissible against that appellant and not her co-accused, and in not giving proper directions concerning the requisite state of mind for a finding of criminal responsibility under ss 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial for each appellant. The Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury that statements made by one appellant were only admissible against that appellant and not her co-accused. The Court also found that the trial judge's directions on criminal responsibility under ss 7 and 8 were erroneous, and that appropriate directions in accordance with R v Jeffrey were not given. The Court held that these errors were sufficient to warrant setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial. The Court emphasised that in a joint trial, it is crucial that the trial judge properly directs the jury on the limits of the admissibility of statements made by one appellant against her co-accused, and on the requisite state of mind for a finding of criminal responsibility under ss 7 and 8. The Court also noted that it is preferable for the prosecution to give particulars of the alternative cases it proposes as a basis for conviction of each offender, especially if a case is intended to be brought under s8. The Court's decision highlights the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials, particularly in joint trials where the admissibility of statements made by one appellant against her co-accused must be carefully managed.

Orders