SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Sharpley [2011] QCA 124
PARTIES:
R
v
SHARPLEY, Robert John
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 268 of 2010
SC No 25 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:
14 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 June 2011
JUDGES:
Chesterman and White JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal is allowed;
2. The conviction is set aside and a verdict of acquittal is entered instead.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was convicted of unlawfully killing a man – where the appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that it was not open to the jury to exclude self defence and that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence and/or unreasonable – where the appellant and deceased were involved in a scuffle – where the cause of death could not be determined upon a post mortem examination – where there was no weapon used by either the appellant or deceased – where there was no evidence that the appellant continued to use force after he had successfully extricated himself from the deceased’s grasp – whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 271(1), s 293
Humphries v The King [1943] St R Qd 156, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied
R v Sherrington & Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, applied
Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27, appliedCOUNSEL:
PJ Davis SC, with A Katsikalis, for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
[1] CHESTERMAN JA: After a three day trial the appellant was, on 3 November 2010, convicted of unlawfully killing John Campbell at Toowoomba on 30 May 2009. He has appealed against his conviction on a number of grounds raised by an Amended Notice of Appeal. It is only necessary to mention two of those grounds because if they are made out, as in my opinion they are, the conviction must be set aside.
[2] The grounds are that:
(i) It was not open to the jury to exclude self defence;
(ii) The verdict was unsupported by the evidence and/or was unreasonable.
[3] The deceased died sometime between 4.00 am and 6.00 am on Saturday morning 30 May 2009. The cause of death could not be determined on a post mortem examination, a fact relevant to the second ground of appeal. The only evidence of the circumstances in which the deceased died came from accounts given by the appellant. In short he said that he and the deceased had been…
Continue reading R v Sharpley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sharpley [2011] QCA 124
- Case
- [2011] QCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In considering these issues, the court noted that the appellant and the deceased were involved in a scuffle and that the cause of death could not be determined upon a post-mortem examination. There was no evidence that the appellant used a weapon or that he continued to use force after he had extricated himself from the deceased’s grasp. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant's actions were not in self-defence and that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The verdict was therefore unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. A verdict of acquittal was entered instead.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal is allowed;
2. The conviction is set aside and a verdict of acquittal is entered instead.
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.