R v Miller - [2009] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Miller [2009] QCA 11

PARTIES:

R
v
MILLER, Ralph Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 9 of 2008
SC No 52 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal Against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Chesterman JA
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 – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – WHERE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where defence raised issue of provocation – whether trial judge effectively directed the jury in relation to provocation and intention

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where verdict of manslaughter was available if provocation found – whether verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 302(1)(a), s 304, s 668E(1)

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, cited
Green v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 334; [1997] HCA 50, applied
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, applied
R v Hill (1986) 25 CCC (3d) 322; [1986] 1 SCR 313, cited
R v Mankotia (2001) 120 A Crim R 492; [2001] NSWCCA 52, followed
R v Pollock [2008] QCA 205, cited
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61, applied
Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins, with Y Chekirova, for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Chesterman JA that the appeal should be dismissed and generally with his Honour’s reasons.

Green v The Queen[1] requires a jury to take into account an accused person’s special sensitivity, established by evidence, to matters relevant to what is said to constitute provocation. Despite the valiant attempt of Mr Kimmins and Ms Chekirova on behalf of the applicant, which this Court gratefully acknowledges was undertaken on a pro bono basis, there was no evidence at trial to warrant a direction of the type discussed in Green.
[1](1997) 191 CLR 334; [1997] HCA 50 at 346.

The jury in this case sought redirections as to the meaning of the terms “heat of passion” and “sudden provocation” in s 304 Criminal Code. The wording of s 304 is effectively in the same terms as when the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) was enacted. The expression “heat of passion” has a melodramatic 19^th century tone which is unfamiliar to 21^st century jurors. The judge’s…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2009] QCA 11
Case: [2009] QCA 11
Decision Date: 13 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miller, the appellant stood trial for the murder of a man. The trial judge convicted the appellant of murder, and the case was brought to the Court of Appeal. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury on the legal principles concerning provocation and the intention necessary for a murder conviction. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury regarding the concept of provocation and whether the jury's verdict was reasonable given the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the evidence supported a manslaughter conviction based on provocation, which would have been a viable alternative to the murder conviction. The court considered the trial judge's instructions to the jury and whether they sufficiently covered the legal criteria for provocation. The court also assessed whether the jury's decision to convict of murder, rather than manslaughter, was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. Ultimately, the court determined that the trial judge had provided adequate directions to the jury, and the verdict of murder, while not the only possible outcome, was not unreasonable given the evidence.

The court found that the evidence did not compel a manslaughter verdict based on provocation, and thus the jury's decision to convict of murder was not unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of properly instructing juries on the legal standards applicable to alternative verdicts, while also affirming the jury's role in assessing the evidence and determining the appropriate conviction.

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 Miller [2009] QCA 11
PARTIES:	R v MILLER, Ralph Thomas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 9 of 2008 SC No 52 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal Against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Chesterman JA 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 – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MURDER – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – WHERE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where defence raised issue of provocation – whether trial judge effectively directed the jury in relation to provocation and intention CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where verdict of manslaughter was available if provocation found – whether verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 302(1)(a), s 304, s 668E(1) Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, cited Green v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 334; [1997] HCA 50, applied Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, applied R v Hill (1986) 25 CCC (3d) 322; [1986] 1 SCR 313, cited R v Mankotia (2001) 120 A Crim R 492; [2001] NSWCCA 52, followed R v Pollock [2008] QCA 205, cited Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61, applied Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins, with Y Chekirova, for the appellant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent