R v Roughan - [2009] QCA 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roughan [2009] QCA 21

PARTIES:

R
v
ROUGHAN, James Patrick
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 210 of 2008
SC No 774 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 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 — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL — MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION — REVIEW OF EVIDENCE — where witnesses testified as to appellant's acquiescence to inculpatory statements by others — where appellant asserted that jury direction by trial judge with respect to that evidence insufficient — where appellant alleged that trial judge should have given Shepherd direction — whether evidence "indispensable intermediate step" to inference of guilt thereto

CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE — APPEAL DISMISSED — where appellant alleged evidence of witnesses convicted as accessories after the fact unreliable insofar as witnesses received reduced sentences for
co-operation in prosecution of appellant — whether jury entitled to consider adverse evidence against the appellant

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(c)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30, cited
R v Falzon [1990] 2 Qd R 436, cited
R v Leivers & Ballinger [1999] 1 Qd R 649; [1998] QCA 99, cited
R v Lennox [2007] QCA 383, cited
R v Rice [1996] 2 VR 406; [1996] VSC 13, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis SC for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA:
On 1 April 2005 the decapitated body of Morgan Jay Shepherd, a

17 year old itinerant person ("the deceased"), was found in a shallow grave near Dayboro. The head of the deceased was located nearby. The deceased was last seen alive on the evening of Tuesday 29 March 2005 in company with the appellants, James Roughan and Christopher Jones, at the Sandgate home of Roughan.

The appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased. The Crown case of murder against the appellant was that the appellant had, either killed the deceased by a lethal blow struck with his own hand or, aided Jones in the killing of the deceased with the intent of causing death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased.[1]
[1]See s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). See also R v Leivers and Ballinger [1999] 1 Qd R 649 at 662 – 663, 668.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the unlawful killing of the deceased and to a charge of interfering with…

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 Roughan

Details

AGLC: R v Roughan [2009] QCA 21
Case: [2009] QCA 21
Decision Date: 20 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Roughan, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The nature of the dispute was centred on the sufficiency of the jury direction provided by the trial judge regarding the inculpatory statements made by others, which the appellant had allegedly acquiesced to. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient or if there had been a misdirection or non-direction. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the trial judge should have given a Shepherd direction, and whether the evidence was an "indispensable intermediate step" to the inference of guilt. Another issue was whether the jury was entitled to consider the adverse evidence against the appellant, particularly when the witnesses had received reduced sentences for their cooperation in the prosecution.

The court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient, and no misdirection or non-direction had occurred. The court held that the evidence presented was not an "indispensable intermediate step" to the inference of guilt, and the jury was entitled to consider the adverse evidence against the appellant, despite the witnesses having received reduced sentences for their cooperation in the prosecution. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

The orders made by the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant remained in place.

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.

CITATION:	R v Roughan [2009] QCA 21
PARTIES:	R v ROUGHAN, James Patrick (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 210 of 2008 SC No 774 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 February 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 — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL — MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION — REVIEW OF EVIDENCE — where witnesses testified as to appellant's acquiescence to inculpatory statements by others — where appellant asserted that jury direction by trial judge with respect to that evidence insufficient — where appellant alleged that trial judge should have given Shepherd direction — whether evidence "indispensable intermediate step" to inference of guilt thereto CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE — APPEAL DISMISSED — where appellant alleged evidence of witnesses convicted as accessories after the fact unreliable insofar as witnesses received reduced sentences for co-operation in prosecution of appellant — whether jury entitled to consider adverse evidence against the appellant Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(c) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30, cited R v Falzon [1990] 2 Qd R 436, cited R v Leivers & Ballinger [1999] 1 Qd R 649; [1998] QCA 99, cited R v Lennox [2007] QCA 383, cited R v Rice [1996] 2 VR 406; [1996] VSC 13, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Davis SC for the appellant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent