R v OCP

Case [2022] QSC 138

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v OCP & Ors [2022] QSC 138

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

OCP , MALJAY TOALA & HLC

FILE NO/S:

Indictment 638/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 July 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2022 – 25 May 2022; 30 June 2022

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDER:

OCP

Count 1 – Not guilty
Count 2 – Not guilty
Count 3 – Not guilty

Maljay Toala

Count 1 – Not guilty
Count 2 – Not guilty
Count 3 – Not guilty

HLC

Count 1 – Not guilty
Count 2 – Not guilty

Count 3 – Not guilty

Each defendant is discharged on indictment 638/22.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM –VERDICT – where defendants were three of a group of five teenagers, who were charged with manslaughter and doing grievous bodily harm, as parties to offences of murder and of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm committed by the principal offender (one of the group of five) – where the principal offender carried a knife – where the defendants’ group followed another group of teenagers, unknown to them, for the purposes of engaging the other group in a fight – where the groups fought – where the principal offender stabbed and killed one member of the other group and intentionally did grievous bodily harm, by stabbing, to another – where the defendants did not intend or anticipate or foresee those outcomes – where defendants’ criminal responsibility alleged to be on a section 8 basis: that is, where the Crown alleged that manslaughter and the doing of grievous bodily harm were objectively probable consequences of the defendants’ unlawful common purpose, with the principal offender and another, to pursue, assault and do physical harm to the other group of teenagers – where the Crown did not allege that defendants were aware that the principal offender would bring his knife to the fight – where Crown did not allege that defendants’ group intended to do serious physical harm to members of other group – judge alone trial

COUNSEL:

T A Fuller QC for the Crown
G M McGuire for OCP
C L Morgan for Maljay Toala

M J Hynes for HLC

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Queensland for OCP
Legal Aid Queensland for Maljay Toala
Gatenby Criminal Law for HLC

Table of Contents

The indictment

Overview

The particulars

Criminal responsibility

The evidence – general matters

Formal admissions

Other evidence

Oral testimony

The Woodridge Group and the Gold Coast Group met on The Esplanade

The Woodridge Group and the Gold Coast Group met again on the corner of Cavill Avenue and Surfers Paradise Boulevard

Jack Beasley’s Group noticed the Woodridge and Gold Coast Groups at the Corner

Jack Beasley’s Group moved to a bench while waiting for Izaiah and Rory to return from the shops/ATM

Jack Beasley’s Group left…

Continue reading R v OCP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v OCP [2022] QSC 138
Case
[2022] QSC 138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v OCP, the defendants were three of a group of five teenagers who were charged with manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm, as parties to offences of murder and of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm committed by the principal offender, who was also one of the group of five. The principal offender, during a fight between two groups of teenagers, stabbed and killed one member of the opposing group and seriously injured another. The defendants did not intend or foresee these outcomes. The Crown argued that the manslaughter and grievous bodily harm were probable consequences of the defendants’ unlawful common purpose, which was to pursue, assault and do physical harm to the other group of teenagers. The trial was conducted before a judge alone.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were criminally responsible for the actions of the principal offender under section 8 of the Criminal Code and whether the manslaughter and grievous bodily harm were probable consequences of the defendants’ unlawful common purpose. The court examined the evidence, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and the defendants’ admissions, to determine if the Crown had proved the defendants’ criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the defendants did not intend serious harm and did not anticipate that the principal offender would bring a knife to the fight. The court held that the killing and serious injury were outside the scope of the defendants’ purpose, and therefore, they could not be held criminally responsible for the principal offender’s actions.

The court acquitted all the defendants on all counts and discharged them from the indictment. The reasoning of the court was based on the principle that the defendants’ criminal responsibility could only be established if the Crown proved that the manslaughter and grievous bodily harm were probable consequences of the defendants’ unlawful common purpose. Since the court found that the defendants did not intend serious harm and did not foresee the tragic outcomes, it concluded that they could not be held responsible for the principal offender’s actions. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendants and discharged them from the indictment.

Orders

Orders of the court

OCP

Count 1 – Not guilty

Count 2 – Not guilty

Count 3 – Not guilty

Maljay Toala

Count 1 – Not guilty

Count 2 – Not guilty

Count 3 – Not guilty

HLC

Count 1 – Not guilty

Count 2 – Not guilty

Count 3 – Not guilty

Each defendant is discharged on indictment 638/22.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Those admissions were sufficient proof of the facts stated therein, without the need for further evidence of those facts.Other evidence The movements of the Woodridge Group on the Friday night, including the stabbings by RSG, were captured by CCTV cameras which were in several locations from Woodridge to Surfers Paradise. The footage from the cameras was tendered in various forms – including (but not only) chronological compilations of footage from various cameras and slow-motion edits. I have studied the CCTV footage of the defendants’ movements and the fight and its aftermath in detail. The story revealed by the CCTV footage was contextualised by oral evidence from the members of the Gold Coast Group and Jack Beasley’s Group. Although the ability of the individual young people in those groups to recall the detail of the evening varied, and although, understandably, their evidence was not perfectly consistent, their evidence, considered as a whole, in the context of the CCTV footage, produced a cohesive narrative. Also, the Crown tendered maps of the relevant area, still photographs, recorded interviews with each of the defendants (with transcripts and the documents drawn by, or shown to, the defendants during their interviews), and recorded interviews with two witnesses who were under 16 in December 2019 (with transcripts).Oral testimony An outline of the oral evidence of the Crown witnesses follows. I have attempted to recite it in chronological order.[3] [3]I have referred to the witnesses and the defendants by their first names to enhance the clarity of these reasons. I intended no disrespect by doing so. One of the matters in contest, and about which there was a lot of evidence, was whether the Woodridge Group had been talking about “hitting a lick on” – that is, robbing someone to obtain drugs or money – before their pursuit of Jack Beasley’s Group. However, it was not alleged by the Crown that the Woodridge Group had any plans to rob a member of Jack Beasley’s Group. In effect, the Crown alleged that the Woodridge Group were looking for a fight for the sake of it. Arguably, although not much was made of it despite all the evidence about it, the Woodridge Group’s conversations about hitting a lick on reflected their attitude to violence, which in turn, arguably, gave some context to the nature and scope of the fight they had in contemplation.The Woodridge Group and the Gold Coast Group met on The Esplanade Hunter was 15 years old in December 2019 and 18 at the trial. She was a member of the Gold Coast Group. She was interviewed by police on 14 December 2019. Her interview was recorded, and the electronic record of it was tendered under section 93A of the Evidence Act (Qld) 1977 as part of her evidence-in-chief (“93A evidence”). A transcript of Hunter’s 93A evidence was tendered as an exhibit without objection. She also gave oral evidence in court, covering the same ground. Hunter explained in her 93A evidence how she met the Woodridge Group and their interest in Jack Beasley’s Group. The CCTV footage shows that the Woodridge Group spent some time at a barbeque on The Esplanade before “hanging” with the Gold Coast Group at a bench a few metres away from the barbeque. The Gold Coast Group were “doing nangs”. The groups separated and went their own way for a short while, before they met up again on the corner of Cavill Avenue and Surfers Paradise Boulevard.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Woodridge’s Group’s purpose was to fight for the sake of it. The defendants did not intend serious harm. They wanted to show off their prowess or strength or toughness. They did not anticipate that RSG would use his knife in the fight. Killing and seriously injuring the other young men within seconds of the fight starting was wholly outside their purpose. Conclusion As explained above, I was not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that any of the defendants were guilty of any of the offences charged on the indictment. In other words, I was not satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they bear criminal responsibility for RSG’s unexpected actions and their tragic consequences. RSG acted well beyond anything that, objectively, fell within the probable consequences of the defendants’ plan to pursue and fight with Jack Beasley’s Group. It was my duty therefore to find each defendant “not guilty” of every count and to discharge them all on the indictment.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.