R v Self

Case [2001] QCA 338

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Self [2001] QCA 338
PARTIES: R
v
SELF, Troy Alan
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 77 of 2001
SC No 394 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 24 August 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 1 August 2001
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MURDER – appellant convicted of the murder of his de facto partner’s three year old female child – circumstantial case against the appellant – where the injuries causing death had been sustained during a time when the appellant had sole care of the child – where the appellant asserted an unidentified third party was responsible for the injuries

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – OBJECTIONS AND  POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW –IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – evidence of uncharged acts of violence by the appellant towards the child and child’s mother admitted at trial – where parts of the evidence regarding the conduct towards the mother included occasions where the child was not present - not objected to by defence on the probable basis of tactical decision – where the error in allowing such evidence was not such to cause miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – where the evidence of violence towards the child rightly admitted as evidence of relationship between the appellant and child – such evidence also relevant to intention, and capable of assisting to rebut accident or misadventure – evidence in a circumstantial case that may aid inference that accused person with opportunity to do so did assault the child – whether the failure by the trial judge to direct as to the specific use that could be made of such evidence such to cause a miscarriage of justice – need to give a propensity direction not universal – KRM considered, BRS and Gipp distinguished – where in a strong circumstantial case of this kind a propensity warning could confuse a jury’s legitimate reasoning process

Criminal Code s 668E(1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s132B

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, distinguished
Gipp v The Queen (1994) CLR 106, distinguished
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729, considered
Emery v The Queen (1999) 110 A Crim R 221, considered
KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550, considered
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234, considered
O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566, considered
R v AB [2000] QCA 520, CA No 118 of 2000, 19 December 2000, considered
R v D [2001] QCA 256; CA No 16 of 2001,…

Continue reading R v Self

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Self [2001] QCA 338
Case
[2001] QCA 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Self, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner's three-year-old female child. The child's death resulted from injuries sustained during a period when the appellant had sole care of her. The prosecution's case against the appellant was circumstantial, relying on the timing of the injuries and the appellant's assertion that an unidentified third party was responsible. The appellant's appeal against his conviction was centred on several legal issues, including the admission of evidence of uncharged acts of violence by the appellant towards the child and her mother, and the failure of the trial judge to provide a specific direction regarding the use of such evidence.

The court examined whether the admission of evidence concerning the appellant's conduct towards the child's mother, some of which occurred in the absence of the child, was an error that warranted a miscarriage of justice. Although the defence did not object to this evidence, it was suggested that this may have been a tactical decision. The court found that the error in allowing this evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as it did not significantly influence the outcome of the trial. The court also assessed whether the trial judge's failure to provide a specific direction on the use of evidence of violence towards the child was a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that such a direction is not universally required and that in a strong circumstantial case, a propensity warning could confuse the jury's reasoning process.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The evidence was deemed to be strongly circumstantial and sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the child's death. The court found that any errors in the trial did not result in a miscarriage of justice and upheld the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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.