R v Maloney - [2000] QCA 335

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Maloney [2000] QCA 335

PARTIES: R
v
MALONEY, Darren Bradley
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 69 of 2000
SC No 18 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON: 1 September 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 18 August 2000

JUDGES: Pincus and Thomas JJA, Moynihan SJA
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 – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INSANITY – DIRECTION TO THE JURY

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – summing up - whether trial judge should have given directions on consequences of respective verdicts open when a defence of insanity raised – where juror asked question regarding consequences of the respective verdicts – where evidence that appellant was dangerous – where jury directed that consequences of the respective verdicts an irrelevant consideration – matter of discretion for trial judge - difficulties in framing direction on consequences of special verdicts

Criminal Code (Qld), s 27, s 647
Mental Health Act 1974 (Qld), s 39
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 204
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure Act 1990 (NSW), s 37

Attorney-General for South Australia v Brown [1960] AC 432, considered
Brown v The Queen (1959) 33 ALJR 89, considered
Hilder (1997) 97 A Crim R 70, considered
Lucas v The Queen (1971) 120 CLR 171, applied

R v Lorimer [1966] NZLR 985, considered

COUNSEL: S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant
L J Clare for the respondent

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

PINCUS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Thomas JA. As his Honour points out, the statute presently governing the status of people who have been acquitted on account of unsoundness of mind has been replaced by another which has not yet been proclaimed. The latter contains a provision (s 204 of the Mental Health Act 2000) which appears to reverse the burden of proof, with respect to the question whether releasing the patient would create a danger to the safety of others. Assuming the new provisions become law, they might possibly make it easier for people who have been acquitted on account of unsoundness of mind to be released into the community. Of course, there is always the possibility that further relevant changes in the law might occur during the period of confinement of the person so acquitted; or there might during that period be a stiffening or relaxation of the authorities' attitude toward applications for release.

Some jurors, concerned about the danger presented by a person who has committed a crime of violence and whose sanity is debatable, would no doubt be more inclined to…

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 Maloney

Details

AGLC: R v Maloney [2000] QCA 335
Case: [2000] QCA 335
Decision Date: 1 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the respondent, Maloney, who had been convicted of murder. The High Court of Australia heard the case to determine whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the consequences of the respective verdicts when a defence of insanity was raised. The jury was directed that the consequences of the respective verdicts were irrelevant, and the trial judge refused to give any direction on this matter. Maloney appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge should have provided a direction on the consequences of the verdicts. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge should have given directions to the jury on the consequences of the respective verdicts when a defence of insanity was raised.

The Court considered the matter of discretion for the trial judge and the difficulties in framing a direction on the consequences of special verdicts. It was acknowledged that in some circumstances, it might be necessary for the trial judge to give a direction on the consequences of the verdicts, but this was not considered an absolute obligation. The Court held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in this case, as the consequences of the verdicts were not relevant to the jury's decision. The trial judge's direction that the consequences of the verdicts were irrelevant was considered appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in their direction to the jury and that the appeal against Maloney's conviction was dismissed. The Court emphasised that while it might be necessary in some cases for the trial judge to give a direction on the consequences of the verdicts, it was not an absolute obligation. The trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, and the direction given was considered suitable for the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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.

CITATION:	R v Maloney [2000] QCA 335
PARTIES:	R v MALONEY, Darren Bradley (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 69 of 2000 SC No 18 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	1 September 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2000
JUDGES:	Pincus and Thomas JJA, Moynihan SJA 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 – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INSANITY – DIRECTION TO THE JURY CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – summing up - whether trial judge should have given directions on consequences of respective verdicts open when a defence of insanity raised – where juror asked question regarding consequences of the respective verdicts – where evidence that appellant was dangerous – where jury directed that consequences of the respective verdicts an irrelevant consideration – matter of discretion for trial judge - difficulties in framing direction on consequences of special verdicts Criminal Code (Qld), s 27, s 647 Mental Health Act 1974 (Qld), s 39 Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 204 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure Act 1990 (NSW), s 37 Attorney-General for South Australia v Brown [1960] AC 432, considered Brown v The Queen (1959) 33 ALJR 89, considered Hilder (1997) 97 A Crim R 70, considered Lucas v The Queen (1971) 120 CLR 171, applied R v Lorimer [1966] NZLR 985, considered
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent