R v Saxon

[2020] QCA 85

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Saxon [2020] QCA 85

PARTIES:

R
v
SAXON, Jamie Douglas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 292 of 2019
SC No 756 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 31 October 2019 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

27 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 April 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Boddice and Davis JJ

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Quash the conviction.

3.   Order a retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of murder – where the appellant appeals the conviction on the ground that a miscarriage of justice was caused when the jury was directed to consider whether the force used in self-defence was necessary – where self-defence was raised on the evidence – where there was error in a document given to the jury explaining the elements of self-defence – whether the error caused the trial to miscarry because there is a real danger that the jury regarded the objective necessity for the use of the force as an element to the defence of self-defence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of murder – where the appellant appeals the conviction on the ground that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the elicitation and use of inadmissible opinion evidence – where a witness gave evidence about the necessity of the force used by the appellant – where self-defence was raised on the evidence – whether the evidence could be used in relation to the objective necessity of the acts done in defence – whether admission of the inadmissible opinion evidence has contributed to the miscarriage

Criminal Code (Qld), s 245, s 271, s 291, s 293, s 302

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630; [1977] HCA 68, followed
R v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589; [1998] QCA 41, followed
R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15, followed
R v Vidler (2000) 110 A Crim R 77; [2000] QCA 63, cited
R v Wilmot (2006) 165 A Crim R 14; [2006] QCA 91, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
M A Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. DAVIS J:  The appellant appealed against his conviction for murder.  This morning, the Court made the following orders: firstly, allow the appeal; secondly, quash the conviction; thirdly, order a retrial.  I joined in the making of those orders…