R v Paddon - [1998] QCA 248

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 248
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 122 of 1998
Brisbane
[R v. Paddon]
THE QUEEN
v.
DARREN EDWARD PADDON
Appellant
McPherson JA
Helman J
Chesterman J
Judgment delivered 28 August 1998
Joint reasons for judgment of McPherson JA and Helman J; separate reasons of Chesterman J each concurring as to the order made.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction for murder - evidence elicited by counsel for defence at trial unfavourable to appellant - whether decision to elicit such evidence could have been tactical and not inevitably prejudicial to appellant - whether conduct of defence by counsel was incompetent such that appellant was deprived of fair trial - unsatisfactory conduct of appeal - insufficient evidence to support assertion of incompetence - waiver of legal professional privilege.
R v. G [1997] 1 Qd R 584
R v. Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v. Miletic [1997] 1 VR 582
Thomason v. Municipality of Campbelltown (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 347
A-G v. Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
Standard Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v. Antico (1995) 36
NSWLR 87
Goldberg v. Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83
Counsel: Mr J Hunter for the appellant
Mr M Byrne QC for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 22 June 1998
JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A. and HELMAN J.
Judgment delivered 28 August 1998
1          We have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Chesterman J. We agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons he has given.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - CHESTERMAN J
Judgment delivered 28 August 1998
1           The appellant was charged with the murder of Robert Gardiner at Brisbane on 6 June, 1997. He was tried and, on 24 March, 1998, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that his conviction was “unsafe and unsatisfactory in all the circumstances” but on the hearing of the appeal his counsel (who did not represent him at the trial) abandoned that ground and sought instead to amend the notice of appeal by substituting:
“That the conduct of the defence by counsel for the appellant was incompetent, with

the result that the trial was rendered unfair and a miscarriage of justice occasioned.”
The court allowed the amendment.
2           The murdered man had lived in a house with the appellant and another man, John Mackenzie, for a few days prior to his death. The appellant and Mackenzie were close friends and had at an earlier time shared a homosexual relationship. The appellant was tall and heavily built. The deceased was slight.
3           On the night of 6 June 1997 the appellant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, smoked marijuana and injected amphetamines. After Mackenzie went to bed the appellant and the deceased began arguing over money which the appellant accused the deceased of having stolen from collection boxes he distributed…

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 Paddon

Details

AGLC: R v Paddon [1998] QCA 248
Case: [1998] QCA 248
Decision Date: 28/08/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Paddon, the appellant was convicted of murder and appealed against the decision. The nature of the dispute centred around the conduct of the appellant's defence counsel during the trial, specifically whether the decision to elicit certain evidence could have been tactical and not inevitably prejudicial. The matter was heard in the court of appeal. The legal issues that arose for determination included whether the conduct of the defence amounted to incompetence, depriving the appellant of a fair trial, and whether the conduct of the appeal itself was unsatisfactory, leading to an inadequate examination of the evidence.

The court of appeal considered the arguments regarding the tactical nature of the defence counsel's decisions and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the assertion that the conduct of the defence was incompetent. Furthermore, the court found that the conduct of the appeal was unsatisfactory due to the failure to properly examine the evidence, including the waiver of legal professional privilege. Consequently, the court determined that the appellant's conviction for murder would stand, as the appeal did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.

Given the findings, the court did not find it necessary to address the tactical nature of the defence counsel's decisions in detail, as the primary issue was the adequacy of the appeal process. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction for murder remained intact. The court did not make any further orders beyond affirming the original decision.

Orders