R v Pickering

Case [2016] QCA 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pickering [2016] QCA 124

PARTIES:

R
v
PICKERING, Rodney Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 34 of 2015
SC No 24 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 12 February 2015

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 August 2015; 26 November 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where a jury found the appellant guilty of manslaughter – where the appellant alleged that s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code ought to have been left to the jury – whether the application of s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code was excluded by s 31(2)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where a jury found the appellant guilty of manslaughter – where the appellant killed the deceased whilst allegedly trying to avoid him – where the trial judge left ss 23(1)(b), 271, 272(1), 24 and 284 of the Criminal Code for the jury to consider – where the trial judge did not leave s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code to the jury to consider – where the appellant alleged that the absence of any instruction to the jury about s 31(1)(c) occasioned a miscarriage of justice – where the jury’s verdict rejected self-defence under s 271(1) – where the appellant alleged it did not follow from the verdict that the jury would inevitably have rejected an application of s 31(1)(c) – whether there was a necessary inconsistency between a conclusion that s 271(1) was excluded but s 31(1)(c) applied – whether it was ‘reasonably possible’ that the failure to direct the jury on s 31(1)(c) may have affected the verdict – whether the failure to direct the jury on the application of s 31(1)(c) occasioned a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 31(1)(c), s 31(2), s 271, s 668E
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1922 (Qld)
Reprints Act 1992 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 43

A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532; [1984] HCA 67, cited
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
Hill v Comben [1993] 1 Qd R 603; [1992] QCA 20, cited
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, considered
Larsen v G J Coles & Co Ltd (1984) 13 A Crim R 109, considered
R v Evans & Gardiner (No 1) [1976] VR 517; [1976] VicRp 52, considered
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49, cited
R v Fietkau [1995] 1 Qd R 667; [1992] QCA 356, considered
R v LK (2010) 241 CLR 177; [2010] HCA 17

Continue reading R v Pickering

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pickering [2016] QCA 124
Case
[2016] QCA 124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pickering, appealed against his conviction for manslaughter, arguing that the trial judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury on s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to acts done in self-preservation. The appellant claimed that the failure to direct the jury on this section was a miscarriage of justice, given that the jury rejected self-defence under s 271(1) but did not consider the possibility of self-preservation under s 31(1)(c). The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether there was a necessary inconsistency in the jury's conclusions and whether it was reasonably possible that the omission affected the verdict.

The court examined the relationship between s 271(1) and s 31(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, noting that the latter pertains to acts done in self-preservation, while the former concerns self-defence. The court concluded that there was no necessary inconsistency in the jury's rejection of self-defence under s 271(1) and the potential application of self-preservation under s 31(1)(c). The court found that the omission to direct the jury on s 31(1)(c) did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, as it was not reasonably possible that the omission affected the verdict.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented, the jury's verdict, and the legal principles involved. The court held that the trial judge's direction on other relevant sections of the Criminal Code was sufficient, and the omission of s 31(1)(c) did not prejudice the appellant's case. The court further found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the failure to direct the jury on s 31(1)(c) occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction for manslaughter. The court's decision underscored the importance of proper jury direction in criminal trials, while also emphasising the need for a miscarriage of justice to be demonstrated in order to warrant a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.