R v Oulds

The appellant, who was convicted of the murder of Jye Burns, appealed the conviction on the basis that his trial counsel's conduct was incompetent and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The two individuals present during the murder were the appellant and Shane Moroney. The critical element of the prosecution's case was Moroney's account that the appellant shot Burns. The appellant's defence was that it was Moroney who shot Burns. The appellant argued that his trial counsel should have called him to give evidence, and that without his evidence, the jury only had Moroney’s version of events. The appellant also complained that trial counsel failed to outline the defence case in the opening statement, did not cross-examine Moroney in accordance with his instructions, and failed to put to Moroney that he had changed his clothing. Moroney was recalled by telephone to address this omission. The appellant contended that these actions constituted incompetence and caused a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether trial counsel's advice not to give evidence was so flawed as to produce a conclusion of incompetence. The court noted that there is no prescription for what may be said in an opening statement in Queensland. The court also considered whether the failure to outline the defence case in the opening statement constituted incompetence. The court held that the real issue was not whether Moroney had killed Burns but whether he could be believed beyond reasonable doubt when he said that the appellant had done so. The court found that trial counsel's decision on what parts of the appellant's instructions to put to Moroney was a legitimate forensic choice. The court also found that the failure to put to Moroney that he had changed his clothing and the decision to recall him by telephone rather than in person did not amount to incompetence or a miscarriage of justice.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's trial counsel's conduct did not amount to incompetence or a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's conviction of murder was upheld. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

The appeal is dismissed.