R v Pike - [2014] QCA 352

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pike [2014] QCA 352

PARTIES:

R
v
PIKE, Stephen Jonathan
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 3 of 2014
SC No 131 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2014

JUDGES:

Gotterson JA and Philippides and McMeekin JJ
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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of manslaughter – where the Crown case was entirely a circumstantial one – where the body of the deceased was never found – where there was evidence that the deceased suffered from severe psychological conditions – where there was evidence that the deceased had attempted suicide in the past, but her condition had been stable for many years – whether alcohol impacted on medication taken by the deceased – where the deceased changed her will in favour of the appellant – where there was evidence of lies and conduct by the appellant which was said to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt of the offence of manslaughter – whether possibility that the deceased committed suicide could be excluded – whether the possibility that the deceased was alive after 13 August 2010 could be excluded – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, applied

COUNSEL:

M C Chowdhury, with J L Voight, for the appellant (pro bono)
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Philippides J and with the reasons given by her Honour.

PHILIPPIDES J: The appellant was charged with the murder of his mother, Suellen Pike, on a date unknown between 11 and 30 August 2010. He was acquitted by the jury of murder but convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years and six months imprisonment with a declaration as to time served.

The sole ground of appeal is that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

The evidence at trial

The body of the deceased, Mrs Pike, was not found and the case against the appellant was a circumstantial one.

Mrs Pike lived at Burleigh Waters on the Gold Coast. She was born on 18 August 1947. She took medication for a number of health problems, including hyperthyroidism, dyslipidemia, hypertension, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, migraines and arthritis.

Mrs Pike had a close relationship with a number of elderly people associated with a church community and was aided by members of that…

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 Pike

Details

AGLC: R v Pike [2014] QCA 352
Case: [2014] QCA 352
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pike involved the appellant, who was found guilty of manslaughter following a trial. The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, as the body of the deceased was never found. The key issues before the court were whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter, given the absence of the deceased's body and the potential for the deceased to have committed suicide or to have survived beyond the last date she was seen alive.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the psychological condition of the deceased, the impact of alcohol on her medication, and changes in her will that favoured the appellant. The court also considered the appellant's conduct and lies, which were argued to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. The court held that it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty of manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the totality of the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the death and the appellant's actions.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the jury was entitled to reject the possibility of suicide and to conclude that the deceased was dead by the time she was last seen alive on 13 August 2010. The evidence of the appellant's conduct and the other circumstances were sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

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.

CITATION:	R v Pike [2014] QCA 352
PARTIES:	R v PIKE, Stephen Jonathan (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 3 of 2014 SC No 131 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2014
JUDGES:	Gotterson JA and Philippides and McMeekin JJ 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of manslaughter – where the Crown case was entirely a circumstantial one – where the body of the deceased was never found – where there was evidence that the deceased suffered from severe psychological conditions – where there was evidence that the deceased had attempted suicide in the past, but her condition had been stable for many years – whether alcohol impacted on medication taken by the deceased – where the deceased changed her will in favour of the appellant – where there was evidence of lies and conduct by the appellant which was said to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt of the offence of manslaughter – whether possibility that the deceased committed suicide could be excluded – whether the possibility that the deceased was alive after 13 August 2010 could be excluded – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, applied
COUNSEL:	M C Chowdhury, with J L Voight, for the appellant (pro bono) B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent