Legal Research
Cases
R v Randall

R v Randall

Case [2018] QSC 100 11 May 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Randall [2018] QSC 100

PARTIES:

R

(prosecution)

v
COLIN DAVID RANDALL
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS No 909 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

16 April 2018, 20 April 2018, 24 April 2018, 11 May 2018

JUDGE:

Davis J

CATCHWORDS:

SENTENCE – UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A CHILD

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 184
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 576(1)
Criminal Law (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9, 12A(2)(a), 13, 15, 160C, 161B

Barbaro and Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58, cited
Crump v New South Wales (2012) 247 CLR 1, cited
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, cited
Pickering v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 151, cited
R v Aaron Baxter, Supreme Court of Queensland, North J, 21 November 2017, cited
R v Amato [2013] QCA 158, cited
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78, cited
R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, cited
R v Carlisle [2017] QCA 258, cited
R v Chard; ex parte Attorney-General [2004] QCA 372, cited
R v Everleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398, cited
R v Goodwin; ex parte Attorney-General (2014) 247 A Crim R 582, cited
R v Hall; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 125, cited
R v Hutchinson [2018] QCA 29, cited
R v Kitson [2008] QCA 86, cited
R v Latemore [2016] QCA 110, cited

R v Matthew Lee Williamson, Supreme Court of Queensland, Atkinson J, 6 April 2017, cited

R v Maxfield [2002] 1 Qd R 417, cited
R v McDougall & Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87, cited
R v Riseley; ex parte Attorney-General [2009] QCA 285, cited
R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542, cited
R v Strbak[2017] QSC 317, cited
R v Todd [1976] Qd R 21, cited
York v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 466, cited

COUNSEL:

P J McCarthy for the prosecution

D Brustman QC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the prosecution

Howden Saggers for the defendant

[1]Colin David Randall, you were charged on an indictment that you did murder Kye Braxton Randall. Your trial was to commence on 23 April 2018. On 20 April 2018, through your counsel, you asked to be arraigned before me on a charge of manslaughter, which is the natural alternative to murder under section 576(1) of the Criminal Code. You were then arraigned before me in the following terms: “Colin David Randall, you are charged that on the 28^th day of June 2014 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland, you unlawfully killed Kye Braxton Randall.” To that charge, you entered a plea of guilty. The plea of guilty was accepted…

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 Randall

Details

AGLC: R v Randall [2018] QSC 100
Case: [2018] QSC 100
Decision Date: 11 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Randall, the respondent stood trial before the Supreme Court of Victoria for the unlawful killing of a young child. The prosecution alleged that Randall had intentionally caused the death of the child through acts of violence, resulting in a murder charge. The court was tasked with determining the facts of the case, the appropriate legal charge, and the appropriate sentence if the respondent was found guilty.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Randall had committed the unlawful killing of the child. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate legal charge, whether it be murder or a lesser charge such as manslaughter. If found guilty of murder, the court then had to determine the appropriate sentence for Randall, taking into account the circumstances of the case and any mitigating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish that Randall had intentionally caused the death of the child. The court found that the appropriate legal charge was murder, as the evidence demonstrated that Randall had acted with intent and premeditation. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the gravity of the offence, the age of the victim, and any mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court ultimately sentenced Randall to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Orders