R v Palmer - [2005] QCA 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Palmer [2005] QCA 2

PARTIES:

R
v
PALMER, Joanne Dale
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 276 of 2004
SC No 14 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2004

JUDGES:

Davies JA and Fryberg and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - where the appellant was convicted of murdering and torturing two victims - where the two victims were brutally assaulted, taken into bushland and shot - where the appellant was convicted as a principal offender under s 7 or s 8 Criminal Code - where the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erred when directing the jury about "joint criminal enterprise" - where the phrase does not appear in the Criminal Code - whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the learned trial judge's directions

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE - where the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erred in the manner in which he put the defence case to the jury - where the appellant submitted that directions to the jury had the effect of giving the jury the impression that they were only to acquit the appellant if they accepted her version of events - whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the learned trial judge's directions

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(c), s 7(1)(d), s 8

Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193, cited

R v Walton and Harman [2001] QCA 309; CA No 54 of 2001 and CA No 55 of 2001, 7 August 2001, discussed

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for appellant
M R Byrne for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA:
1. This appeal

After a trial by jury the appellant was convicted on 20 July 2004 of the murders of Sharon May Clark and James Gareth Hunt and of torturing each of them before their death. She appeals against those convictions on the following grounds:

"1.The learned Trial Judge erred when he directed the jury about 'joint criminal enterprise'; and
2.His Honour the learned Trial Judge erred in the manner in which he put the Defence case to the jury."

This appeal was heard with the appeal in R v Smith[1] and this judgment is being given on the same day as judgment in that appeal.

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 Palmer

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer [2005] QCA 2
Case: [2005] QCA 2
Decision Date: 4 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Palmer, the appellant was convicted of the brutal murder and torture of two victims. The victims were assaulted, transported to bushland, and ultimately shot. The appellant was found guilty as a principal offender under sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in directing the jury on the concept of a "joint criminal enterprise," a phrase that does not appear in the Criminal Code. The appellant argued that this misdirection may have led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the concept of a "joint criminal enterprise" constituted a misdirection or non-direction that could have prejudiced the appellant's defence. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge's presentation of the defence case to the jury was flawed, potentially leading the jury to believe they could only acquit the appellant if they accepted her version of events. The court needed to determine if these alleged errors in jury directions constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found no misdirection or non-direction that could have prejudiced the appellant's defence. The court held that the trial judge's explanation of the "joint criminal enterprise" concept was consistent with the law as it applied to the case. The court also found that the trial judge's presentation of the defence case did not mislead the jury. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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.

CITATION:	R v Palmer [2005] QCA 2
PARTIES:	R v PALMER, Joanne Dale (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 276 of 2004 SC No 14 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	4 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2004
JUDGES:	Davies JA and Fryberg and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - where the appellant was convicted of murdering and torturing two victims - where the two victims were brutally assaulted, taken into bushland and shot - where the appellant was convicted as a principal offender under s 7 or s 8 Criminal Code - where the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erred when directing the jury about "joint criminal enterprise" - where the phrase does not appear in the Criminal Code - whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the learned trial judge's directions CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE - where the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge erred in the manner in which he put the defence case to the jury - where the appellant submitted that directions to the jury had the effect of giving the jury the impression that they were only to acquit the appellant if they accepted her version of events - whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the learned trial judge's directions Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(c), s 7(1)(d), s 8 Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193, cited R v Walton and Harman [2001] QCA 309; CA No 54 of 2001 and CA No 55 of 2001, 7 August 2001, discussed
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan for appellant M R Byrne for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent