R v. Roughan & Jones

Case [2007] QCA 443

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roughan & Jones [2007] QCA 443

PARTIES:

R
v
ROUGHAN, James Patrick
(appellant)

R
v
JONES, Christopher Clark

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 87 of 2007
CA No 105 of 2007
SC No 774 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2007

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir JJA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

In CA No 87 of 2007 (in relation to Roughan):

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction set aside

3. New trial ordered 

In CA No 105 of 2007 (in relation to Jones):

Appeal dismissed 

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –  UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – OTHER CASES – where appellants pleaded not guilty to murder and guilty to interfering with a corpse – where appellants convicted of murder – whether jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was alive when first appellant was said to have stabbed and decapitated deceased

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – where first appellant was refused separate trial – whether joint trial made disentanglement of case against first appellant from stronger case against second appellant unduly difficult – whether evidence that first appellant had been charged with similar offence, admitted in second appellant's case, unfairly prejudiced first appellant's prospects of acquittal – whether separate trials should have been ordered to ensure fair trial of first appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – where second appellant prevented from exploring detail of evidence that first appellant had been charged with similar offence – whether second appellant thereby denied chance of establishing that first appellant more likely to have murdered deceased – whether separate trials should have been ordered to ensure fair trial of second appellant 

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where witnesses prosecuted as accessories and received wholly suspended sentences conditioned upon undertaking to give evidence against appellants – whether evidence of witnesses should have been excluded under s 130 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – whether evidence of second appellant's bad character should have been excluded – whether jury were properly directed on use of that…

Continue reading R v. Roughan & Jones

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Roughan and Jones [2007] QCA 443
Case
[2007] QCA 443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Roughan and Jones, were convicted of murder and interfering with a corpse, respectively. They lodged an appeal against their convictions and sentences. The appeal raised several issues: whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was alive when Roughan allegedly stabbed and decapitated her, whether the joint trial of the appellants unfairly prejudiced their prospects of acquittal, and whether certain evidence should have been excluded. The court was required to determine if the jury's verdict was reasonable, if the joint trial was appropriate, and if the evidence was admissible.

The court found that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was alive when Roughan committed the fatal act. It also found that the joint trial did not unfairly prejudice either appellant's prospects of acquittal. However, the court held that the evidence of witnesses who were prosecuted as accessories and received wholly suspended sentences conditioned upon giving evidence against the appellants should have been excluded. Furthermore, the court determined that evidence of Roughan's violent music collection and Jones's bad character was improperly admitted. These errors deprived Jones of a fair chance of acquittal.

In CA No 87 of 2007 (in relation to Roughan), the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. In CA No 105 of 2007 (in relation to Jones), the appeal was dismissed. The court's decisions highlight the importance of ensuring that evidence is properly admitted and that trials are conducted fairly to protect the rights of the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 87 of 2007 (in relation to Roughan):

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction set aside

3. New trial ordered

In CA No 105 of 2007 (in relation to Jones):

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.