Legal Research
Cases
R v Morant

R v Morant

Case [2018] QSC 222 5 October 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morant [2018] QSC 222

PARTIES:

R
v
GRAHAM ROBERT MORANT

(accused)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 1424 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 to 21 September 2018; 24 to 28 September 2018; 2 October 2018

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

On count 1, counselling suicide, the jury be directed:

The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

(i)        The accused intended, when he counselled the deceased, that the counselling would persuade her to kill herself.

(ii)       But for the counselling, the deceased would not have killed herself, by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning on 30 November 2014.

On count 2, aiding suicide, the jury be directed:

The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

(i)        When the acts of aiding were done, the accused knew that the deceased would or may kill herself by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning; and

(ii)       The accused intended that the acts of aiding would assist or help the deceased to kill herself by carbon monoxide poisoning.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – OTHER MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND MATTERS – where the accused was charged with two counts of aiding suicide – where one count encompasses counselling and one count encompasses aiding – whether the accused needed to know of the deceased’s state of mind to be criminally responsible

Criminal Code (Qld) s 7, s 8, s 9, s 311

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 351

Burns v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 334, cited
Carter v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2014] 1 Qd R 111, cited
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, applied
IL v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 764, cited
R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296, considered
R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30, considered
R v Jeffrey [2003] 2 Qd R 306, cited
R v Licciardello [2017] QCA 286, considered
R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529, cited
R v Nielsen [2012] QSC 29, considered
R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, considered
R v Stott and Van Embden [2002] 2 Qd R 313, followed

Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378, cited

COUNSEL:

M Lehane for the Crown
M Thomas and D Wells for the accused

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown
Team Lawyers for the accused

The accused, Mr Morant, was charged on indictment with two counts against s 311 of the Criminal Code: Aiding Suicide. Issues arose during the trial as to the appropriate directions to the jury on the state of mind of the accused and the deceased (Mrs Morant) necessary for the charges to be proved.
During the trial I ruled on these issues and indicated that I would deliver reasons at some later…

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 Morant

Details

AGLC: R v Morant [2018] QSC 222
Case: [2018] QSC 222
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morant, the defendant was charged with two counts of aiding and counselling suicide, related to the death of the deceased by carbon monoxide poisoning on 30 November 2014. The trial judge was asked to provide directions to the jury regarding the necessary elements that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt for each of the two counts.

The central legal issues in the case were the specific elements required for the jury to find the accused guilty of the two separate counts of aiding and counselling suicide. The court was required to determine whether the accused needed to know of the deceased’s state of mind in order to be found criminally responsible for these offences.

In determining the directions to the jury, the court found that for count 1, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended, when he counselled the deceased, that the counselling would persuade her to kill herself, and that but for the counselling, the deceased would not have killed herself. For count 2, the court held that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that when the acts of aiding were done, the accused knew that the deceased would or may kill herself by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning, and that the accused intended that the acts of aiding would assist or help the deceased to kill herself by carbon monoxide poisoning.

The final orders of the court provided specific directions to the jury regarding the necessary elements for each count of aiding and counselling suicide.

Orders

Orders of the court

On count 1, counselling suicide, the jury be directed:

The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

(i) The accused intended, when he counselled the deceased, that the counselling would persuade her to kill herself.

(ii) But for the counselling, the deceased would not have killed herself, by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning on 30 November 2014.

On count 2, aiding suicide, the jury be directed:

The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

(i) When the acts of aiding were done, the accused knew that the deceased would or may kill herself by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning; and

(ii) The accused intended that the acts of aiding would assist or help the deceased to kill herself by carbon monoxide poisoning.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Morant [2018] QSC 222

Most Recent Citation

R v Morant [2020] QCA 135

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

R v Morant
[2020] QCA 135

…01; [2018] QSC 222, related R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, cited R v Solomon [1959] Qd R 123, discussed SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited COUNSEL: J P Benjamin for the appellant/applicant D Balic for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Di…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

R v Licciardello
[2017] QCA 286 Para 10

…act done a crime …”[55] (emphasis added). [53] Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 212, citing in particular R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74. [54][2017] QCA 286. [55]At [4], [32].…
Il v The Queen
[2017] HCA 27 Para 6

…counselling[12] or aiding suicide.[13] [9]As expressed in s 311: “killing himself or herself”. [10]See generally the discussion in IL v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 764 of the distinction between murder and assisting suicide. [11] Criminal Code (Qld) s 311(a). [12]Section 311(b). [13]Section 311(c).…
Miller v The Queen
[2016] HCA 30 Para 10

…ow (1997) 188 CLR 1; and for the doctrine of “extended joint criminal enterprise”, being the common law equivalent of s 8, see Miller v the Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380.…
Burns v The Queen
[2012] HCA 35 Para 1

…drug use. She prescribed anti-depressant medication, after which his condition improved.”[38] (emphasis added) [35][2002] 2 Qd R 313. [36](2012) 246 CLR 344. [37]The person who died. [38]Muir J (as his Honour then was) agreed with McPherson JA (see [25]), as did Atkinson J, who added some further remarks as to the la…
R v Nielsen
[2012] QSC 29 Para 2

…ur duty is to acquit the defendant.” [33]Tried in the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. The sentencing remarks of the trial judge became [2012] QSC 29.…
Humphry v The Queen
[2003] WASCA 53 Para 6

…ent in the terms expressed in s 311(b) would be avoided. [22] R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105; Humphry v The Queen (2003) 138 A Crim R 417. [23] R v Oberbillig [1989] 1 Qd R 342 at 345. [24][1990] 1 Qd R 30.…
R v Sherrington & Kuchler
[2001] QCA 105 Para 6

…ement of inducement in the terms expressed in s 311(b) would be avoided. [22] R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105; Humphry v The Queen (2003) 138 A Crim R 417. [23] R v Oberbillig [1989] 1 Qd R 342 at 345. [24][1990] 1 Qd R 30.…
R v Barlow
[1997] HCA 19 Para 10

…on equivalent to s 8 extending liability of a person under s 311 who counsels or aids suicide. [25] Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426; R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1; and for the doctrine of “extended joint criminal enterprise”, being the common law equivalent of s 8, see Miller v the Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380.…
Royall v The Queen
[1991] HCA 27 Para 3

…ould fill the car and kill her. By her voluntary act, she caused her own death, [2] and therefore “killed herself”.[3] [2] Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 at 377, 421, 441–449; Burns v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 334 at [16] and [18]. [3] Criminal Code s 311(b) and 311(c).…
Doney v The Queen
[1990] HCA 51 Para 10

…ntial facts of that offence. That is all the essential matters which makes the act done a crime …”[55] (emphasis added). [53] Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 212, citing in particular R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74. [54][2017] QCA 286. [55]At [4], [32].…
Yorke v Lucas
[1985] HCA 65 Para 8

…s unnecessary to reach a final conclusion on the application of Giorgianni to s. 7 of our Code, a matter which was not argued before us.”[50] [49](1985) 158 CLR 661. [50] R v B & P at 309.…
Giorgianni v the Queen
[1985] HCA 29 Para 5

…nts” which must be known to the counsellor or aider is that the actor holds that state of mind.[8] [7] Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 at 487, 488, 500, 506 and 507. [8] R v Jeffrey [2003] 2 Qd R 306 at 310.…
Stuart v The Queen
[1974] HCA 54 Para 10

…r.[25] There is also no provision equivalent to s 8 extending liability of a person under s 311 who counsels or aids suicide. [25] Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426; R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1; and for the doctrine of “extended joint criminal enterprise”, being the common law equivalent of s 8, see Miller v the…
[1960] 1 QB 129
[1960] 1 QB 129 Para 9

…onally aimed at the commission of the acts which constitute [the offence]”,[52] if in fact the actor commits the offence [51]See R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 and others considered by Lee J in R v Ancuta [1991] 2 Qd R 413. [52] Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 at 506.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
351 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 6)

CITATION:	R v Morant [2018] QSC 222
PARTIES:	R v GRAHAM ROBERT MORANT (accused)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 1424 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	5 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 to 21 September 2018; 24 to 28 September 2018; 2 October 2018
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	On count 1, counselling suicide, the jury be directed: The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (i) The accused intended, when he counselled the deceased, that the counselling would persuade her to kill herself. (ii) But for the counselling, the deceased would not have killed herself, by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning on 30 November 2014. On count 2, aiding suicide, the jury be directed: The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (i) When the acts of aiding were done, the accused knew that the deceased would or may kill herself by using the generator to cause her death by carbon monoxide poisoning; and (ii) The accused intended that the acts of aiding would assist or help the deceased to kill herself by carbon monoxide poisoning.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES – OTHER MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND MATTERS – where the accused was charged with two counts of aiding suicide – where one count encompasses counselling and one count encompasses aiding – whether the accused needed to know of the deceased’s state of mind to be criminally responsible Criminal Code (Qld) s 7, s 8, s 9, s 311 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 351 Burns v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 334, cited Carter v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2014] 1 Qd R 111, cited Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, applied IL v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 764, cited R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296, considered R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30, considered R v Jeffrey [2003] 2 Qd R 306, cited R v Licciardello [2017] QCA 286, considered R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529, cited R v Nielsen [2012] QSC 29, considered R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, considered R v Stott and Van Embden [2002] 2 Qd R 313, followed Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378, cited
COUNSEL:	M Lehane for the Crown M Thomas and D Wells for the accused
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown Team Lawyers for the accused