R v Ritchie - [1998] QCA 188

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 188
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 289 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Ritchie]

T H E Q U E E N

JULIE ANN RITCHIE Appellant
McPherson J.A.
Helman J.
Chesterman J.

Judgment delivered 17 July 1998

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED; CONVICTION QUASHED AND

VERDICT IMPOSED BELOW SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction - Murder - Section 8 Criminal Code - Whether appellant shared common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose - Whether murder was committed in prosecution of common unlawful purpose - Whether offence is of such a nature that its commission is a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose - Whether appellant shared escalating common intention.
Sections 7, 8 Criminal Code *Barlow v. The Queen* (1997) 188 C.L.R. 1 *R. v. Jervis* [1993] 1 Qd.R. 643
Counsel:	Ms. C. Holmes for the appellant Mr P. Ridgway for the respondent
Solicitors:	McLaughlins for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	22 June 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 17 July 1998

The appellant, who at the time of her trial in June 1997 was a woman 54 years old and an invalid pensioner, was one of five accused arraigned in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on an indictment charging them with the murder of Kevin George Hockey at the Gold Coast on or about 31 December 1995. They were Martin Bernard Ballinger, Tracey Irene Leivers, the appellant Julie Ann Ritchie, Robert Dennis Wilson, and Raymond John Williams. All except Williams, who was acquitted outright, were found guilty as charged. Appeals by Leivers and Ballinger (C.A. nos. 279 and 280 of 1997) were heard and disposed of at an earlier sitting of the Court of Appeal. At that hearing the appellant applied for and obtained an adjournment of her appeal to enable material to be prepared in support of an allegation that she had not been competently represented at the trial. As it happens, however, when the appeal came to a hearing, Ms. Holmes of counsel, who appeared for the appellant, elected to rely only on one ground, which is that the directions to the jury with respect to the appellant’s criminal responsibility under s.8 of the Criminal Code were deficient.

It is therefore only with that question that we are concerned here. In order to understand it, it is necessary to begin by describing the circumstances in which Kevin Hockey was killed. He lived at Elanora near Currumbin in the appellant’s home unit, which she occupied and shared with her stepson, the accused Wilson, and his girlfriend Tabatha Sercombe. Hockey was said to have been given to violence, and to have been behaving in that way on the night in question. He owed money to the others and the appellant wanted him to vacate the unit. Because of the…

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 Ritchie

Details

AGLC: R v Ritchie [1998] QCA 188
Case: [1998] QCA 188
Decision Date: 17/07/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ritchie, the appellant was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from the death of a man during a violent altercation, and the central issue was whether the appellant had shared a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose that led to the death. The appellant was found to be involved in the altercation, which resulted in the victim's death. The court had to determine whether the appellant shared a common intention with the actual perpetrator of the murder and whether the murder was committed in the prosecution of a common unlawful purpose. Additionally, the court examined whether the offence of murder was of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose and whether the appellant shared an escalating common intention.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the provisions of Section 8 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the liability of parties to a crime. The court needed to discern whether the appellant's actions and intentions met the criteria for a shared common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, which would make him equally culpable for the murder. The court also had to consider the nature of the offence and whether the death was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the appellant's role in the events constituted an escalating common intention, which would further establish his criminal responsibility.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the appellant shared a common intention with the actual perpetrator to prosecute an unlawful purpose, which led to the death of the victim. The court determined that the offence of murder was of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose. Additionally, the court held that the appellant shared an escalating common intention, as his involvement in the altercation contributed to the fatal outcome. Consequently, the appellant's conviction for murder was upheld. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of criminal liability for parties to a crime and the foreseeability of the fatal outcome as a consequence of the unlawful purpose.

No further orders were made by the court, as the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The appellant's conviction for murder was confirmed, and he remained liable for the crime under the principles of shared common intention and escalating common intention as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Orders