R v O'Dempsey

Case [2018] QCA 364

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v O’Dempsey [2018] QCA 364

PARTIES:

R
v
O’DEMPSEY, Vincent
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 137 of 2017
SC No 1046 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 26 May 2017 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

25 July 2018; 26 July 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Brown J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of deprivation of liberty and three counts of murder – where the three deceased were a mother and her two young daughters – where the offences the subject of the indictment were alleged to have occurred in January 1974 – where the Crown case was that the appellant’s co-accused was worried that the deceased mother had been talking to people about the co-accused’s involvement in an arson incident and that the co-offender was worried that this may have resulted in him being implicated in a separate arson incident which resulted in the deaths of 15 people – where the Crown case was that the appellant, as a good friend of the co-accused, was willing to help murder the deceased mother and her two children in order to silence the mother – where the appellant submits that the learned trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant’s co-accused’s motive to kill the deceased mother – whether the decision of the learned trial judge to admit evidence relating to motive involved an error of law, resulted in a miscarriage of justice or was not subject to appropriate directions to the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the learned trial judge admitted evidence, in the form of written statements and a transcript, of the dead husband/father of the three deceased pursuant to s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – where the appellant submits that this evidence should not have been admitted – where the appellant submits that the learned trial judge failed to assess and apply s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to the reliability of each representation – where the written statements were given over two weeks after the disappearance of the three deceased and so, the appellant submits, could not have satisfied the requirement that they were “made when or shortly after the asserted fact happened” – where the appellant submits that the context of the making of the statements, being while the witness assisted police in locating his family, was not a reasonable basis upon which to conclude the statements were reliable – whether the learned trial judge erred in admitting the written statements and transcript into evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS…

Continue reading R v O'Dempsey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v O'Dempsey [2018] QCA 364
Case
[2018] QCA 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v O’Dempsey, the appellant appealed against his conviction of one count of deprivation of liberty and three counts of murder. The murders were of a mother and her two young daughters, and the appellant was the co-accused of the primary offender. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant raised a number of grounds for the appeal, including the admission of evidence, misdirections, and non-directions by the learned trial judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the co-accused’s motive, as well as the evidence of the deceased’s husband and father, and whether the trial judge’s summing up to the jury was fair and balanced. The court found that there were no grounds for an appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. The trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence of the co-accused’s motive or the evidence of the deceased’s husband and father, as the evidence was relevant and reliable. Furthermore, the trial judge had not misdirected or non-directed the jury in their summing up, and the summing up was fair and balanced. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.