R v Pollock

Case [2009] QCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pollock [2009] QCA 268

PARTIES:

R
v
POLLOCK, Andrew Murray
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 345 of 2008
SC No 1037 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – PROVOCATION – where appellant charged with murder and manslaughter in alternative – where appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not murder – where appellant raised defence of provocation – where jury convicted appellant of murder – where appellant challenges judge's directions on provocation – where appellant challenges conduct of Crown Prosecutor – where appellant challenges conduct of trial – where appellant challenges reasonableness of jury's verdict – whether verdict of manslaughter should be entered

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B

Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited
Freeman v State, 269 Ga 337 (1998), cited
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited
Holmes v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] AC 588, cited
Johnson v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 619; [1976] HCA 44, considered
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, considered
King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423; [1986] HCA 59, cited
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, considered
People v Cruickshank, 484 NYS 2d 328 (NY App Div 1988), cited
People v Jackson, 18 Cal App 3d 504 (1971), cited
R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, cited
R v Burrows (1988) 36 A Crim R 408, cited
R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1, cited
R v Pangilinan [2001] 1 Qd R 56; [1999] QCA 528, cited
R v Pollock [2008] QCA 205, considered
R v Rae [2006] QCA 207, cited
R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545, considered
State v Gachot, 609 So 2d 269 (La Ct App 1992), cited
State v Janes, 121 Wash 2d 220 (1993), cited
State v Nemeth, 82 Ohio St 3d 202 (1998), cited
State v Smullen, 380 Md 233 (2004), cited
Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, cited
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61, cited
Tran v The Queen (2000) 105 FCR 182; [2000] FCA 1888, considered
Williams v Smith (1960) 103 CLR 539; [1960] HCA 22, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Keim SC, with A E Cappellano, for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid…

Continue reading R v Pollock

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pollock [2009] QCA 268
Case
[2009] QCA 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was charged with both murder and manslaughter in relation to the death of an individual. The case was heard in the higher court, which considered the appellant's guilty plea to manslaughter but not murder. The appellant also raised a defence of provocation, which was rejected by the jury. The appellant appealed against the conviction of murder, arguing that the trial judge had given incorrect directions on the issue of provocation. Additionally, the appellant contended that the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor and the trial itself was improper, and that the jury's verdict of murder was unreasonable.

The court examined the legal issues surrounding the directions given to the jury by the trial judge, specifically focusing on the elements of provocation. The court assessed whether the judge's directions were correct and whether they adequately conveyed the law on provocation to the jury. The court also considered the appellant's claims regarding the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor and the trial, and whether any such conduct was prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial. Finally, the court evaluated the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, taking into account the evidence presented and the directions given by the trial judge.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the judge's directions on the issue of provocation were accurate and appropriate. The court also determined that there was no improper conduct on the part of the Crown Prosecutor or the trial that would warrant a new trial. Finally, the court concluded that the jury's verdict of murder was reasonable, given the evidence presented and the directions given by the trial judge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of murder was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court, as the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of murder was upheld. The appellant's challenges to the judge's directions on provocation, the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor and trial, and the reasonableness of the jury's verdict were all rejected by the court.

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.