R v McMahon - [2004] VSCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 155 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
LISTER McMAHON

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BUCHANAN, J.A. and COLDREY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 April 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 64

---

Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Evidence of “lies” – Whether certain lies left to jury capable of being “material lies” – Whether judge in error in leaving such lies to jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt – Whether directions regarding the approach which the jury should take to accused’s evidence were unfair – Whether judge’s directions concerning circumstantial evidence and the onus in respect thereof were biased against the interests of the accused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Andrianakis & Associates

WINNEKE, P.:

On 14 September 2001 the applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court at Ballarat of the murder of one Grant Plier at Unit 2, 517 Ripon Street, Ballarat. He was also convicted of arson of a garage at those premises; an offence alleged to have occurred whilst the applicant was seeking to dispose of Plier’s body. It was conceded that whoever committed the murder also set fire to the garage.

The premises at Ripon Street belonged to the Office of Housing and were operated through an agency called Centrecare which provided housing and support services for psychiatrically disturbed people. The deceased was the occupier of Unit 2, and the applicant resided there with him. The deceased was a schizophrenic; the applicant suffers from a psychotic illness which has been diagnosed as a Schizo-affective disorder. It is apparent that their respective disorders were not assisted by the copious quantities of liquor which they were accustomed to drinking up to the time when the deceased met his death. At autopsy, the deceased’s blood/alcohol content was in excess of “.3”.

The precise mental state of the applicant at the time when the deceased met his death on Thursday, 6 April 2000 is unknown. Some days after the death of the deceased, he was admitted to the Grampians Psychiatric Service; and he was later examined by Dr. Lester Walton in October 2000. At that time it appears that his symptoms were in remission; but Dr. Walton noted that he could make no definitive comment about his likely state of mind at the time when the death of the deceased occurred; and – therefore – whether any defence of mental impairment was or was not open. At all times, however, the applicant maintained that he was not implicated in the killing of the deceased who had been brutally beaten and stabbed to death in the unit which was occupied by the two of them. When Dr. Walton next saw the applicant (after his conviction), he was still maintaining his innocence. At that time, the applicant was compliant with his medication but was…

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 McMahon

Details

AGLC: R v McMahon [2004] VSCA 64
Case: [2004] VSCA 64
Decision Date: 30 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McMahon involved a criminal trial for murder where the defendant, McMahon, stood accused of the crime. The dispute centred on whether the circumstantial evidence presented, combined with certain statements made by the accused, sufficiently proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the lies told by McMahon were material and could be considered evidence of his consciousness of guilt. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the approach to McMahon’s evidence were fair and unbiased. The judge's instructions on the use of circumstantial evidence and the onus of proof were also under scrutiny to ensure they did not unfairly prejudice the accused.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation and admissibility of circumstantial evidence, particularly whether the lies told by McMahon could be deemed "material lies" that pointed to his guilt. The court also examined whether the judge had erred in leaving these lies to the jury as evidence of McMahon's consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the judge's directions regarding the jury's approach to McMahon's evidence were fair and whether the instructions concerning the use of circumstantial evidence were biased against the accused.

The court held that the lies told by McMahon were not necessarily material lies that pointed to his consciousness of guilt. The judge's directions to the jury regarding McMahon's evidence were deemed fair, as they did not unfairly prejudice the accused. The court also found that the judge's instructions concerning circumstantial evidence and the onus of proof were not biased against McMahon's interests. The evidence, including the circumstantial aspects, was found to be sufficient to establish McMahon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The court ordered that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge be maintained. McMahon's appeal was rejected, and the original verdict of guilty was affirmed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that the evidence presented, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to meet the high standard of proof required in criminal trials.

Orders