R v Pangilinan

Case [2001] QCA 81


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Pangilinan  [2001] QCA 81
PARTIES: R
v
PANGILINAN,  Jorai Severo
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 180 of 2000
SC No 265 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 13 March 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 26 February 2001
JUDGE: McMurdo P, Williams JA, Wilson J
Judgment of the Court
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL, PARDON AND ENQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – appellant convicted of murder – whether verdict of jury internally inconsistent

MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered

COUNSEL: T D Martin SC for the appellant
M J Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
  1. THE COURT:  The appellant, Jorai Severo Pangilinan, appeals against his conviction for the murder of Kevin Sutton Anderson at The Gig Nightclub on or about 1 February 1998.  The contention is that such a verdict by the jury was inconsistent with the verdict that the appellant was not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to Hilton Todd Owens with intent to do grievous bodily harm and was, for that reason, unsafe and unsatisfactory.  The inconsistency was said to be between the satisfaction of the jury that the appellant had an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm to Anderson and their conclusion that he did not have an intention to cause grievous bodily harm to Owens.  The consequence of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant was that a conviction for manslaughter should be substituted for that of murder.

  1. It should be recorded that counsel for the appellant expressly abandoned the remaining ground raised by the notice of appeal.

  1. As a result of a few minutes of mayhem at the nightclub on the evening in question Anderson died from a single knife wound to his chest, Owens received a cut in his left lower neck region, Gary Wayne Pryer sustained a number of injuries including a deep short laceration over his left eye, and Darrin Van Johnson received a four centimetre cut to his left lateral forearm which cut deep into his muscle.  It was admitted by the appellant that he had the knife in his hand when it occasioned each of those injuries.  The indictment presented against the appellant contained five counts: 

Count 1 - murder of Anderson;

Count 2 - grievous bodily harm to Owens with intent to do grievous bodily harm;

Count 3 - alternatively to count 2, grievous bodily harm to Owens;

Count 4 - unlawful wounding Pryer;

Count 5 - unlawful wounding Johnson.

  1. The jury returned guilty verdicts with respect to counts 1, 3, 4 and 5; as already noted the appellant was found not guilty of count 2.

  1. Anderson, Owens, Pryer and Johnson were all African-American sailors on leave…

Continue reading R v Pangilinan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pangilinan [2001] QCA 81
Case
[2001] QCA 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Pangilinan, who was convicted of murder. The nature of the dispute was whether the verdict of the jury was internally inconsistent and thus unreasonable or insupportable. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was inconsistent, as they found him guilty of murder but acquitted him of the charge of attempted murder in relation to the same act. The appellant claimed that the verdict was unreasonable because a person cannot be guilty of murder but not guilty of attempted murder in relation to the same act.

The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or insupportable. The court noted that a verdict is unreasonable or insupportable if it is impossible to deduce from the evidence, or if it is inconsistent with itself, or with the evidence, or if it is otherwise plainly wrong. The court also noted that an inconsistency in the verdict does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable or insupportable, and that the jury is entitled to draw inferences from the evidence before them.

The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable. The court noted that the jury was entitled to acquit the appellant of attempted murder if they were satisfied that the appellant did not form the intention to kill the victim at the time of the act, even if they were satisfied that he intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The court also noted that the jury could have found that the appellant did not form the intention to kill the victim until after the act had been committed, and that the charge of attempted murder related to the intention at the time of the act. The court held that the verdict was not inconsistent with itself or with the evidence, and that the jury was entitled to draw the inferences they did from the evidence before them. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

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.