SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Murray [2016] QCA 342
PARTIES:
R
v
MURRAY, Hamish Stewart
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 208 of 2015
SC No 34 of 2015DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 28 August 2015
DELIVERED ON:
19 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 October 2016
JUDGES:
Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The appellant’s conviction of murder be quashed.
3. The appellant be retried upon the indictment.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted by jury of murder – where at trial the appellant’s counsel applied to exclude proposed evidence from an accessory after the fact of conversations about text messages that the appellant received from the deceased – where the trial judge dismissed the application and ruled that the evidence was adverse to the appellant’s interest and shed light on the relationship between the parties – where during cross-examination of the appellant, a jury note inquired as to the content and meaning of particular text messages referred to in the accessory’s evidence – where the appellant contends the evidence should not have been admitted because the jury note suggests it caused the jury to impermissibly speculate as to what was said in the messages – whether the evidence was admissible
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted by jury of murder – where after the events causing the deceased’s death, the appellant wrapped the deceased in a carpet or blanket and disposed of the body in mangroves off an isolated road – where the appellant also disposed of items containing the deceased’s blood and cleaned the scene of the crime – where in summing up the trial judge distinguished the disposal of the body and the cleaning of the scene as two distinct categories of post-offence conduct – where the trial judge directed that there are “innocent” explanations for post-offence conduct, including “panic, fear or other reasons having nothing to do with the offence charged” – where the trial judge directed that the disposal of the body may be used as consciousness of guilt of murder only if the jury excluded the “innocent” explanations – where the appellant contends a miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that disposing of the body could also indicate consciousness of guilt of an unintentional killing and there is a real possibility that the jury did not consider that lesser offence – whether the non-direction amounted to a miscarriage of justice
Continue reading R v Murray
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Murray [2016] QCA 342
- Case
- [2016] QCA 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in this case revolve around whether the admission of the text message evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the trial judge’s direction on post-offence conduct was deficient. The court had to determine if the jury’s consideration of the text messages was prejudicial to the appellant’s case and if the trial judge’s summing up adequately covered all possible inferences regarding the disposal of the body. The court examined whether the evidence was properly admitted and if the trial judge's instructions to the jury were comprehensive enough to ensure a fair trial. The court also considered whether the non-direction on the lesser charge of manslaughter amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
In its reasoning, the court found that the admission of the text message evidence did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it caused a miscarriage of justice. However, the court held that the trial judge’s summing up on post-offence conduct was deficient as it did not adequately address the possibility that disposing of the body could also indicate consciousness of guilt of an unintentional killing. This omission could have led the jury to overlook the lesser charge of manslaughter, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction of murder was quashed, and the appellant was ordered to be retried upon the indictment.
The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, quash the appellant’s conviction of murder, and order a retrial on the indictment. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive jury directions and the careful consideration of evidence in criminal trials to ensure justice is fairly administered.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The appellant’s conviction of murder be quashed.
3. The appellant be retried upon the indictment.
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.