SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Shoesmith [2011] QCA 352
PARTIES:
R
v
SHOESMITH, Mark Albert
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 67 of 2011
SC No 21 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
9 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
24 November 2011
JUDGES:
Fraser JA and Mullins and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The conviction and sentence are set aside.
3. A new trial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – TEST TO BE APPLIED – where the appellant was found guilty of the manslaughter of his girlfriend’s 14 week old baby – where the appellant’s version of events was that the baby slipped through his legs, hit her head on the edge of a coffee table and then fell onto the cement floor – where the baby suffered a severe fracture of the skull, retinal haemorrhages, a fold in the retina, a significant subdural haemorrhage, brain swelling, areas of contusion on the brain, and a torn fraenulum, and she had a linear bruise on her forehead – where experts called by the Crown gave evidence that those injuries were not consistent with being caused by an accident described by the appellant – where experts called by the defence gave evidence that such injuries were possible in short falls – where the Crown experts made concessions in cross-examination – whether an absence of scientific certainty requires a jury to harbour a reasonable doubt – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the baby had suffered a number of previous injuries – where the appellant had given varying accounts to different people of how those injuries had occurred – where a judge at a pre-trial hearing accepted that the evidence might establish that the appellant had told lies about the cause of the injuries, the jury might therefore conclude that the appellant had caused the previous injuries, and the evidence was therefore admissible for a number of reasons, including to exclude a defence of accident – where no directions were given in relation to impermissible propensity reasoning in the summing up – where the prosecutor did not clearly allege that the appellant was responsible for the previous injuries, but so much was clearly implicit in his closing address to the jury – where the trial judge did not direct the jury in relation to all of the lies alleged by the prosecution – whether the alleged non-directions resulted in a miscarriage of justice
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130, s 132B
Continue reading R v Shoesmith
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Shoesmith [2011] QCA 352
- Case
- [2011] QCA 352
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's account of the incident and convict him of manslaughter based on the evidence presented. The court considered whether the absence of scientific certainty about the exact mechanism of the injuries required the jury to harbour a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court examined whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, despite the conflicting expert evidence. The court also assessed whether any misdirections or non-directions by the trial judge regarding the admissibility of evidence about previous injuries or the lies allegedly told by the appellant amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. The conflicting expert opinions and the concessions made by the Crown's experts in cross-examination created a significant level of doubt. The court found that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on the use of evidence regarding previous injuries or the alleged lies told by the appellant, which contributed to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The conviction and sentence are set aside.
3. A new trial is ordered.
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.