R v Meale

Case [2025] QCA 121

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Meale [2025] QCA 121

PARTIES:

R
v
MEALE, Justin John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 280 of 2022
SC No 230 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 November 2022 (Bradley J)

DELIVERED ON:

1 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Brown JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty of murder – where the issues at trial were whether the appellant had the requisite intent for the offence of murder and whether the prosecution could exclude self-defence – where the appellant shot the victim after text messages of increasing hostility were exchanged between them – where the appellant’s post-offence conduct of immediately leaving the scene, hiding the gun and later retrieving and disposing of the gun was relied on by the prosecution as consciousness of guilt – where the appellant told four lies to police also relied on by the prosecution as consciousness of guilt – where the trial judge gave directions on how the lies and other post-offence conduct could be used as evidence of  the appellant’s consciousness of guilt of the offence of murder – whether the proof of intention and exclusion of self-defence were related issues – whether the trial judge failed to identify the precise issues sought to be proved by the appellant’s consciousness of guilt arising from the lies and other post-offence conduct

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty of murder – where the issues at trial were whether the appellant had the requisite intent for the offence of murder and whether the prosecution could exclude self-defence – where the appellant shot the victim after text messages of increasing hostility were exchanged between them – where the appellant’s post-offence conduct of immediately leaving the scene, hiding the gun and later retrieving and disposing of the gun was relied on by the prosecution as consciousness of guilt – where the prosecution also relied on four lies told to police by the appellant as consciousness of guilt – where the trial judge gave directions on how the lies and other post-offence conduct could be used as evidence of the appellant’s consciousness of guilt of the offence of murder – where the trial judge gave directions which restricted the use of the lies and other post-offence conduct to consciousness of guilt of the offence of murder and not some lesser offence – whether it was the prosecution case to use the lies and post-offence conduct as demonstrating consciousness of guilt for proof of the requisite intent – whether the trial judge’s directions made it clear that the jury could use the evidence of lies and other post-offence conduct to…

Continue reading R v Meale

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Meale [2025] QCA 121
Case
[2025] QCA 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meale involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty of murder. The dispute centered on whether the appellant had the requisite intent for the offence of murder and whether the prosecution could exclude the defence of self-defence. The appellant had shot the victim following a series of increasingly hostile text messages exchanged between them. The prosecution argued that the appellant's post-offence conduct, which included leaving the scene immediately, hiding the gun, and later retrieving and disposing of it, demonstrated consciousness of guilt. Additionally, the prosecution relied on four lies the appellant told to police as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The trial judge provided directions on how the lies and other post-offence conduct could be used as evidence of the appellant’s consciousness of guilt of the offence of murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the use of the lies and other post-offence conduct as evidence of the appellant’s consciousness of guilt. Specifically, the court examined whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could use the evidence of lies and other post-offence conduct to prove the element of intent when the prosecution did not seek to make such a case, and whether the trial judge’s directions made it clear that the jury could use the evidence to prove intent. The court also considered whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in allowing them to use the appellant’s statements about where he disposed of the gun as a lie told out of consciousness of guilt.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury on the use of lies and other post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt. The court held that the prosecution’s case did not require the jury to identify the precise issues sought to be proved by the evidence of lies and other post-offence conduct. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that they could use the evidence of lies and other post-offence conduct to prove intent. The court also held that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury by allowing them to consider the fourth lie as a lie told out of consciousness of guilt, as this did not realistically affect the jury's reasoning to its verdict of guilty.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's conviction for murder was therefore affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant appeals on the following grounds:1.The trial judge erred in instructing the jury concerning the use of lies and other post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt without identifying the precise issues sought thereby to be proved. 2.The trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could use the evidence of lies and other post-offence conduct to prove intent when:a.the prosecution did not seek to make such a case; andb.the trial judge did not first identify intent as the issue to be proved and, instead, referred to the issue to be proved as “murder” or “the offence”.3.The trial judge erred by misdirecting the jury that they could use the appellant’s statements about where he disposed of the gun as a lie told out of a consciousness of guilt of murder.Summary of relevant evidence There was a deal between the appellant and Mr Pollock (whose nickname was Rocky) facilitated by one Mr Smith that the appellant would give Mr Pollock methylamphetamine in exchange for some bullets. Mr Smith gave evidence that Mr Pollock got his nickname because he was violent and that he was a “scary” person when he wanted to be. The appellant received the bullets but Mr Pollock did not receive either the quantity or the quality of drugs that Mr Pollock expected. He let the appellant keep the bullets but still wanted a gram of the drugs. During the afternoon of 2 September 2018, there was a meeting between the appellant, Mr Pollock and Mr Smith at the house where Mr Pollock stayed with his sister, her son (the nephew) and the nephew’s girlfriend. The appellant had offered to give the bullets back to Mr Pollock. Text messages of increasing hostility were exchanged between Mr Pollock and the appellant after the meeting. Mr Pollock was aware that the appellant possessed a shortened .22 rifle. Mr Pollock sent a text at 2.38 pm asking where his bullets were and stating:“… u think that little toy gonna scare me ill spray your hole house up u gonna owe me more than wat u do now”The appellant responded a minute later telling Mr Pollock to leave him alone or the appellant would find him and get him if he wanted to threaten the appellant’s house. Mr Pollock messaged at 3.04 pm that he wanted to be “fixed up” with “a gram” and did not want to wait all day. After further exchanges in which the appellant conveyed that he was expecting his supplier to come over after the supplier finished work at 4.00 pm and the appellant warned Mr Pollock that he lived with his parents and that he would kill anyone who hurt them, Mr Pollock texted the appellant at 3.22 pm which included the following:“… i mean it if u dont want me to come there an play up that little toy u got not gonna stop me let me tell u u got one bullet in chamber i got fifteen so dont go mothing of to me ya goose i mean it i just want wats owed to me an it better be big shards an right on 4 oclock”There were further texts in which the appellant explained that his mate would be finishing at 4.00 pm and then coming straight to the appellant. Mr Pollock messaged at 3.41 pm and gave him until 4.15 pm to get the drugs to Mr Pollock. At 3.54 pm, Mr Pollock messaged that he wanted what was owed and to stop being treated like a goose. The appellant responded that he was not treating him like a goose and that Mr Smith should have told the appellant that it went to Mr Pollock but he did not and now the appellant was paying twice as he “did give him a bit” (which was a reference to giving a bit of drugs to Mr Smith). Soon after 4.00 pm the appellant let Mr Pollock know that he did not have a gram, and he had to wait for another contact in order to get that amount.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.