R v Moloney - [2015] QCA 12

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Moloney [2015] QCA 12

PARTIES:

R
v
MOLONEY, Zachary Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 220 of 2013
SC No 50 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2015

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of murder – where the appellant anticipated confrontation – where the confrontation took place over a few minutes – where the jury considered the issue of ‘intention’ – whether it was unreasonable for the jury to render a guilty verdict on the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was acquitted of murder of the first individual – where the appellant was not acquitted of murder of the second individual – where the events between the allegations of murder of the first individual and the second individual took place over a few minutes – whether there is a factual inconsistency between the separate verdicts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the trial judge redirected the jury on the defence of self-defence – where the redirection included definition of murder – whether the trial judge erred in redirecting the jury

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan QC for the appellant
A W Moynihan QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Jackson J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Jackson J and agree with those reasons and the order proposed by his Honour.

JACKSON J: On 19 August 2013, after a 13 day trial including three days of jury deliberation, the appellant was convicted of the murder of Brandon John Matthews. He applies for leave to appeal and appeals against the conviction.

The appellant had been charged jointly with Luke Michael Jackson with three offences, all occurring on 7 January 2012 during an extremely brief episode, between 11.25 pm and 11.29 pm.

The appellant and Mr Jackson had walked from their residence a few streets away onto the footpath across the road from 8 Hill Street, North Ipswich. Their purpose was to meet Maree Gascoigne, who knew them both. Mr Jackson wished to borrow money from Ms Gascoigne and had arranged with her to do so. She was at 8 Hill Street, which was the residence of David Barker and…

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 Moloney

Details

AGLC: R v Moloney [2015] QCA 12
Case: [2015] QCA 12
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was convicted of murder and appealed against his conviction. The appeal centred on several grounds, including whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence, the inconsistency between the verdicts for two separate murders, and whether there was an error in the trial judge's redirection of the jury on the defence of self-defence and the definition of murder. The court considered the evidence presented and the jury's consideration of intention, as well as the timeline of events between the two murders and the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, considering the evidence and the appellant's anticipation of a confrontation. The court also had to assess the consistency of the jury's verdicts for two separate murders that occurred within a short time frame. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge's redirection of the jury on self-defence and the definition of murder constituted an error that warranted a new trial.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. The court determined that there was no factual inconsistency between the separate verdicts for the two murders, as the events occurred within a short time frame and the jury's consideration of intention was appropriate. Additionally, the court held that the trial judge did not err in redirecting the jury on self-defence and the definition of murder, as the redirection was consistent with the evidence and legal principles. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The court's final order was to dismiss the appeal against the conviction. The appellant's conviction for murder was upheld, and no new trial was ordered.

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 Moloney [2015] QCA 12
PARTIES:	R v MOLONEY, Zachary Michael (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 220 of 2013 SC No 50 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2015
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of murder – where the appellant anticipated confrontation – where the confrontation took place over a few minutes – where the jury considered the issue of ‘intention’ – whether it was unreasonable for the jury to render a guilty verdict on the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was acquitted of murder of the first individual – where the appellant was not acquitted of murder of the second individual – where the events between the allegations of murder of the first individual and the second individual took place over a few minutes – whether there is a factual inconsistency between the separate verdicts CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the trial judge redirected the jury on the defence of self-defence – where the redirection included definition of murder – whether the trial judge erred in redirecting the jury
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan QC for the appellant A W Moynihan QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent