R v McClutchie - [2015] QCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McClutchie [2015] QCA 120

PARTIES:

R
v
McCLUTCHIE, Wayn Edward Raymond
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 297 of 2013
SC No 620 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 13 November 2013

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Philippides JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the deceased was the appellant’s de facto wife – where there was a history of domestic violence and the appellant had previously made threats to kill or harm the deceased – where the appellant punched the deceased with what he described as “ten out of ten” force, causing her to fall and hit her head – where the appellant placed the deceased’s body in the boot of a car, drove it to a remote location and set it on fire – where the appellant’s counsel argued that it was possible, on the evidence, that the appellant had acted suddenly or spontaneously in the heat of emotion when he punched the deceased – whether the jury, acting reasonably, could have rejected as a rational inference the possibility that the appellant delivered the punch without an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant argued that the trial judge’s directions about intent were inadequate – where the appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that if there were any reasonable inference consistent with an absence of intent, they should acquit, even if there were also a reasonable inference consistent with guilt – where the trial judge directed the jury that they could only draw inferences based on facts proved by the evidence – where the appellant argued that the trial judge should have distinguished between inferences to be drawn against the appellant and those to be drawn in his favour – whether the directions were inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where a witness gave evidence that the appellant had told him the deceased struck the appellant before he punched her – where the appellant argued that the trial judge should have informed the jury that they could have regard to this evidence in relation to intent – where the appellant further argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the appellant’s actual emotional state and its potential effect on his capacity to think clearly – whether…

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 McClutchie

Details

AGLC: R v McClutchie [2015] QCA 120
Case: [2015] QCA 120
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, appealed against his conviction of murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The deceased was the appellant’s de facto wife, and there was a history of domestic violence and threats made by the appellant against the deceased. The appellant punched the deceased with what he described as “ten out of ten” force, causing her to fall and hit her head. He then placed her body in the boot of a car, drove it to a remote location, and set it on fire. The appellant’s counsel argued that it was possible, on the evidence, that the appellant had acted suddenly or spontaneously in the heat of emotion when he punched the deceased.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal included arguments that the trial judge’s directions about intent were inadequate. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that if there were any reasonable inference consistent with an absence of intent, they should acquit, even if there were also a reasonable inference consistent with guilt. The trial judge directed the jury that they could only draw inferences based on facts proved by the evidence. The appellant further argued that the trial judge should have informed the jury that they could have regard to the evidence that the deceased struck the appellant before he punched her in relation to intent. The appellant also argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the appellant’s actual emotional state and its potential effect on his capacity to think clearly.

The appeal was dismissed by the court. The court found that it was open to the jury to reject the possibility that the appellant delivered the punch without an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm. The court also found that the trial judge’s directions were adequate and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the jury had been properly directed to consider the evidence and to draw inferences based on facts proved by the evidence. The court further held that the trial judge’s directions did not prevent the jury from considering the appellant’s actual emotional state and its potential effect on his capacity to think clearly.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 McClutchie [2015] QCA 120
PARTIES:	R v McCLUTCHIE, Wayn Edward Raymond (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 297 of 2013 SC No 620 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 13 November 2013
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 March 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Philippides JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the deceased was the appellant’s de facto wife – where there was a history of domestic violence and the appellant had previously made threats to kill or harm the deceased – where the appellant punched the deceased with what he described as “ten out of ten” force, causing her to fall and hit her head – where the appellant placed the deceased’s body in the boot of a car, drove it to a remote location and set it on fire – where the appellant’s counsel argued that it was possible, on the evidence, that the appellant had acted suddenly or spontaneously in the heat of emotion when he punched the deceased – whether the jury, acting reasonably, could have rejected as a rational inference the possibility that the appellant delivered the punch without an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant argued that the trial judge’s directions about intent were inadequate – where the appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that if there were any reasonable inference consistent with an absence of intent, they should acquit, even if there were also a reasonable inference consistent with guilt – where the trial judge directed the jury that they could only draw inferences based on facts proved by the evidence – where the appellant argued that the trial judge should have distinguished between inferences to be drawn against the appellant and those to be drawn in his favour – whether the directions were inadequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where a witness gave evidence that the appellant had told him the deceased struck the appellant before he punched her – where the appellant argued that the trial judge should have informed the jury that they could have regard to this evidence in relation to intent – where the appellant further argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the appellant’s actual emotional state and its potential effect on his capacity to think clearly – whether…