WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court Townsville of the offence of attempted murder. It is not necessary to say a great deal about the circumstances in which the incident occurred. It is sufficient to say that the appellant and others arrived at a decision that in consequence of the complainant's alleged sexual misbehaviour he should be killed. With that in mind the appellant drilled out a bullet so that - to use the expression in the record - it would leave a small hole in and a big hole out. Also prior to the shooting the appellant carried out test firing of the sawn-off rifle. Apparently it was a single shot rifle.

It is sufficient to say that the complainant was lured to a house and was shot once. The bullet wound penetrated through the left buttock and also through the left groin. To quote from the record the track went through what is in medical terms the ischiorectal space which is a space that is filled with blood vessels and nerves from behind the muscles of the buttock and through down into the groin so the gunshot penetrated up through the muscles that are around the base of the penis and up in through the buttock and out through the muscles of the buttock. The complainant required a number of operations which were life threatening but, fortunately for him, he has been left without any major consequential injury.

As is evident from what I have already said others were also involved in the commission of the offence. One of those persons was a man named M who pleaded guilty to attempted murder and then gave evidence for the prosecution against the appellant. He was cross-examined by defence counsel suggesting that he was prepared to overstate the involvement of the appellant so as to obtain some benefit or advantage for himself.

It was against that background that the passage occurred in the summing-up which gives rise to the only ground of appeal argued on behalf of the appellant. The learned trial Judge said in the course of his summing-up:

"You approach the question bearing in mind that there is a risk that an accomplice might be prepared to overstate the involvement of somebody else or even to falsely implicate them so as to obtain some benefit or advantage for himself. On the other hand, in a case like this you are entitled to consider why if it is the case that the plan was simply to bash this man and take him away somewhere for the purposes of bashing him and letting him go why he would plead guilty to attempted murder. You are also entitled to take that into account when you are considering his evidence."

It is clear from a careful reading of…

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 Reeves

Details

AGLC: R v Reeves [2001] QCA 91
Case: [2001] QCA 91
Decision Date: 13/03/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Logan Bruce Reeves against his conviction for attempted murder, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Townsville. The incident involved the complainant being lured to a house and shot, suffering injuries to the left buttock and groin. The appeal was based on a perceived misdirection by the trial judge during the summing up of the case, specifically regarding the credibility of a co-conspirator, M, who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The main legal issue was whether the trial judge's comments could be interpreted as suggesting that Reeves' guilt could be inferred from M's guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly addressed the issue of M's credibility and that any potential for misinterpretation was cleared up by a subsequent redirection to the jury. The redirection clearly stated that M's guilty plea was not evidence against Reeves, thereby removing any reasonable basis for the jury to infer Reeves' guilt based on M's plea. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal against conviction and dismissed it. Additionally, the Court refused leave to appeal against the 14-year sentence imposed on Reeves, considering the severity of the crime and Reeves' extensive criminal history.

The Court's decision was unanimous, with all judges agreeing that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused. The sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the appellant's criminal history.

Orders