R v Richards - [2023] QCA 7

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richards [2023] QCA 7

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHARDS, Joshua James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 120 of 2021
SC No 86 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 25 May 2021 (Henry J)

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2022

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Flanagan JJA and Freeburn J

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of murder – where the charge arose from an incident in which the victim approached the appellant’s house, and the appellant, upon exiting the house, shot the victim with a bow and arrow – where at the time of the killing the victim was standing on a concrete slab situated between the appellant’s house and another structure on the property – where the appellant contends that the concrete slab was part of a “dwelling” for the purpose of the defence of dwelling provision, s 267 Criminal Code – whether a structure must be a building to be a “dwelling” within s 267 – whether a structure must be capable of being entered or being remained within to be a “dwelling” within s 267 – whether the judge wrongly decided a question of law in deciding the concrete slab was not part of the dwelling

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of murder – where at trial the prosecutor argued that lies told by the appellant after the killing demonstrated a consciousness of guilt and were thereby probative of the appellant’s guilt of the offence charged – where the appellant made confessions – whether the evidence of the confessions was relevant to the issue of the appellant’s lies because it supported the alternative inference that the appellant was lying out of panic or confusion – whether the trial judge needed to again remind the jury of the evidence of the confessions when directing the jury as to possible competing inferences about the lies – whether the judge wrongly directed the jury

Criminal Code (Qld), s 267

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
R v Bartram [2013] QCA 361, cited
R v Dixon (1885) 2 QLJ 81, cited
R v Halloran and Reynolds [1967] QWN 34, cited
R v Rose [1965] QWN 35, cited

COUNSEL:

H L Blattman, with J R Morris and I J MacNicol, for the appellant (pro bono)
M Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO JA: On 17 October 2018, Mr Dennis Beattie came to the appellant’s house at Killaloe which is just south of Mossman in North Queensland. He demanded…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2023] QCA 7
Case: [2023] QCA 7
Decision Date: 7 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the appellant, Richards, against his conviction of murder was heard in the court. The conviction arose from an incident in which the victim approached the appellant’s house, and the appellant shot the victim with a bow and arrow from outside the house. The appellant argued that the concrete slab where the victim stood was part of a “dwelling” for the purpose of the defence of dwelling provision in section 267 of the Criminal Code. The appellant contended that the judge wrongly decided a question of law in deciding that the concrete slab was not part of the dwelling.

The court was required to decide whether a structure must be a building to be a “dwelling” within section 267 and whether a structure must be capable of being entered or being remained within to be a “dwelling” within section 267. The court was also required to decide whether the trial judge wrongly directed the jury in relation to the evidence of the appellant’s confessions and their relevance to the issue of the appellant’s lies.

The court held that the concrete slab was not part of the dwelling because it was not a building and could not be entered or remained within. The court also held that the trial judge did not wrongly direct the jury in relation to the evidence of the appellant’s confessions. The court held that the evidence of the confessions was relevant to the issue of the appellant’s lies because it supported the alternative inference that the appellant was lying out of panic or confusion. However, the court held that the trial judge did not need to again remind the jury of the evidence of the confessions when directing the jury as to possible competing inferences about the lies.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 Richards [2023] QCA 7
PARTIES:	R v RICHARDS, Joshua James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 120 of 2021 SC No 86 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 25 May 2021 (Henry J)
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2022
JUDGES:	McMurdo and Flanagan JJA and Freeburn J
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of murder – where the charge arose from an incident in which the victim approached the appellant’s house, and the appellant, upon exiting the house, shot the victim with a bow and arrow – where at the time of the killing the victim was standing on a concrete slab situated between the appellant’s house and another structure on the property – where the appellant contends that the concrete slab was part of a “dwelling” for the purpose of the defence of dwelling provision, s 267 Criminal Code – whether a structure must be a building to be a “dwelling” within s 267 – whether a structure must be capable of being entered or being remained within to be a “dwelling” within s 267 – whether the judge wrongly decided a question of law in deciding the concrete slab was not part of the dwelling CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of murder – where at trial the prosecutor argued that lies told by the appellant after the killing demonstrated a consciousness of guilt and were thereby probative of the appellant’s guilt of the offence charged – where the appellant made confessions – whether the evidence of the confessions was relevant to the issue of the appellant’s lies because it supported the alternative inference that the appellant was lying out of panic or confusion – whether the trial judge needed to again remind the jury of the evidence of the confessions when directing the jury as to possible competing inferences about the lies – whether the judge wrongly directed the jury Criminal Code (Qld), s 267 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited R v Bartram [2013] QCA 361, cited R v Dixon (1885) 2 QLJ 81, cited R v Halloran and Reynolds [1967] QWN 34, cited R v Rose [1965] QWN 35, cited
COUNSEL:	H L Blattman, with J R Morris and I J MacNicol, for the appellant (pro bono) M Green for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent