SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v MacKenzie [2000] QCA 324 PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
MACKENZIE, Lorna Margaret
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 353 of 1999
SC No 522 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction & Sentence ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 11 August 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 31 March 2000; 2 May 2000 JUDGES: McMurdo P, McPherson JA, Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; McMurdo P and Dutney J concurring as to the orders made, McPherson JA dissenting in partORDER: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal against sentence allowed by vacating the sentence imposed at first instance and substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 12 months. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – where appellant shot husband with a gun she believed to be unloaded – where appellant could recall little of the event in question
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – ACCIDENT – EVENT OCCURRING BY ACCIDENT OR CHANCE – where appellant claimed to have tripped with the result that the gun discharged
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – CODE PROVISIONS – where the appellant was originally charged with murder – where the Crown would have found its evidential burden difficult with respect to intent – where a charge of manslaughter was then offered in exchange for a plea of guilty – where guilty plea was then entered and applicant sentenced on that basis
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILTY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellant was a “battered wife” – whether this line of defence was open to appellant on the facts
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant claimed that her guilty plea was not entered into with adequate legal advice – where the advice complained of was not claimed to be “flagrantly incompetent” but something less serious – whether the appellant’s guilty plea was free and voluntary or whether it was entered without a proper appreciation of the consequences – whether these factors justified setting aside the plea
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEAS – GENERAL PLEAS – PLEA OF GUILTY – EFFECT
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTON, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – GENERALLY – where applicant sought to withdraw her guilty plea on appeal – whether the original guilty plea was now able to be used as a matter…
Continue reading R v MacKenzie
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v MacKenzie [2000] QCA 324
- Case
- [2000] QCA 324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that MacKenzie's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made with adequate legal advice, despite her claims to the contrary. The court determined that the advice was not so deficient as to render the plea involuntary. However, the court did find that MacKenzie's prolonged and serious abuse at the hands of her husband could be considered in the sentencing process. This was relevant to the factors that should be taken into account when imposing a sentence for manslaughter by criminal negligence.
The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the plea of guilty was valid. However, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The original sentence was vacated, and a new sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed, with a recommendation for parole after 12 months. This new sentence took into account the appellant's history of abuse and the nature of the offence committed.
The court's final orders were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against conviction, but to grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal against sentence was allowed by vacating the original sentence and substituting a new sentence of five years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after 12 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal against sentence allowed by vacating the sentence imposed at first instance and substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 12 months.
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.