R v Simpson - [2013] QCA 250

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simpson [2013] QCA 250

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMPSON, Neil Alan
(appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 226 of 2012
SC No 984 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Atkinson and North JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of attempted murder – where appellant argued that the jury could not be satisfied to the requisite standard that his intention was an intention to kill – where appellant argued that the competing inference of the intention to do serious harm was equally open – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – WARNING ADVISABLE OR REQUIRED – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO WARN – where appellant argued that the jury should have been given full Domican direction – where there was no question as to the correctness of the identification of the accused person – where circumstantial evidence supported the correctness of the identification – where defence counsel did not request Domican direction – whether Domican direction was required

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant argued that directions to the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence were perfunctory and that the trial judge should have drawn specific attention to the relevant intermediate facts from which the inference of a specific intention could have been drawn – where the trial judge set out the test of which the jury had to be satisfied before they could safely draw the inference that the appellant had an intent to kill – whether the trial judge failed to direct adequately in relation to circumstantial evidence

R v Butler[2006] QCA 51, followed
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, followed
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed

COUNSEL:

D MacKenzie for the appellant (pro bono)
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons that Atkinson and North JJ have given.

ATKINSON J: The appellant, Neil Alan Simpson, and his co-offender, Toni Maree Prestidge, were convicted in the Supreme Court on 16 August 2012 on one count of attempted murder. The conviction followed a six day jury trial. The appellant's grounds of appeal against that conviction are:

1. In all the circumstances the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2013] QCA 250
Case: [2013] QCA 250
Decision Date: 6 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Simpson, appealed against his conviction for attempted murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Simpson contended that the jury could not have been satisfied to the requisite standard that his intention was to kill. He further argued that the competing inference of the intention to do serious harm was equally open. Additionally, Simpson argued that the trial judge should have given a Domican direction, which is a direction about the advisability or requirement of a warning about identification evidence, and that the failure to do so was significant.

The court considered whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty of attempted murder. It was determined that the jury was properly directed and that there was no error in the trial judge's directions concerning the evidence. The court held that upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty. The circumstantial evidence supported the correctness of the identification of Simpson, and the trial judge had adequately set out the test that the jury had to be satisfied before they could draw the inference of a specific intention. The court found that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the jury was properly directed and that the trial judge's directions concerning the evidence were adequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for attempted murder stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	R v Simpson [2013] QCA 250
PARTIES:	R v SIMPSON, Neil Alan (appellant)
FILE NO:	CA No 226 of 2012 SC No 984 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Atkinson and North JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of attempted murder – where appellant argued that the jury could not be satisfied to the requisite standard that his intention was an intention to kill – where appellant argued that the competing inference of the intention to do serious harm was equally open – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – WARNING ADVISABLE OR REQUIRED – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO WARN – where appellant argued that the jury should have been given full Domican direction – where there was no question as to the correctness of the identification of the accused person – where circumstantial evidence supported the correctness of the identification – where defence counsel did not request Domican direction – whether Domican direction was required CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant argued that directions to the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence were perfunctory and that the trial judge should have drawn specific attention to the relevant intermediate facts from which the inference of a specific intention could have been drawn – where the trial judge set out the test of which the jury had to be satisfied before they could safely draw the inference that the appellant had an intent to kill – whether the trial judge failed to direct adequately in relation to circumstantial evidence R v Butler[2006] QCA 51, followed Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, followed M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed
COUNSEL:	D MacKenzie for the appellant (pro bono) D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent