R v Smith

Case [2021] QCA 105

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2021] QCA 105

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Jacob Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 102 of 2018
SC No 837 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 28 March 2018 (Daubney J)

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:


1 April 2019; 24 February 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

The conviction for murder be set aside and the appellant be retried on the charge of murder.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of murdering the deceased –where the appellant was also charged with other offences: rape, attempted rape, assault occasioning bodily harm and stealing – where the other offences were said to have occurred after the alleged murder – where the other offences were tried on the same indictment as the murder offence – where the appellant pleaded guilty to the other offences at the end of the trial – where the victim of the rape offences and the assault was the deceased’s 12-year-old daughter – where there was no argument at trial as to the relevance or admissibility of the evidence of the other offences – where no party argued on appeal that the counts could not be joined – whether the failure to sever the murder count from the other counts gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where, at trial, the Crown proposed that the appellant’s flight was evidence of a consciousness of guilt of murder – where one of the principal issues for the jury’s consideration was whether the deceased died from asphyxiation or a drug overdose – where the evidence of the defence expert also raised the possibility of an unintentional killing – where defence counsel did not invite the jury to consider the possibility of an unintentional killing – where the trial judge did not draw the jury’s attention to the possibility – whether the trial judge was obliged to identify the unintentional killing hypothesis and explain its consequences to the jury – whether the trial judge should have directed the jury that the appellant’s flight may have been evidence of a consciousness of guilt of manslaughter, a lesser offence – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DRIECTION – where the appellant’s trial went for 11 days – where the appellant pleaded guilty to counts of rape, attempted rape, assault occasioning bodily harm and stealing on the last day of the trial – where detailed evidence of that offending had been presented to the jury –…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2021] QCA 105
Case
[2021] QCA 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murdering the deceased, as well as other offences including rape, attempted rape, assault occasioning bodily harm, and stealing. These other offences were said to have occurred after the alleged murder and were tried on the same indictment as the murder offence. The appellant pleaded guilty to the other offences at the conclusion of the trial. The victim of the rape offences and the assault was the deceased’s 12-year-old daughter. The court had to determine whether the failure to sever the murder count from the other counts gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that there was no argument at trial as to the relevance or admissibility of the evidence of the other offences. The court also found that no party argued on appeal that the counts could not be joined. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice in failing to sever the murder count from the other counts. The court further found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge’s directions to the jury on how they could use the evidence of the other offences. The court held that the trial judge’s directions were adequate, and there was no real risk that the jury misused the evidence of the other offences.

The court also considered whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge’s directions on the evidence of the appellant’s flight as evidence of a consciousness of guilt. The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to identify the unintentional killing hypothesis and explain its consequences to the jury, and that the trial judge was not obliged to direct the jury that the appellant’s flight may have been evidence of a consciousness of guilt of manslaughter, a lesser offence. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice in these respects.

The court ordered that the conviction for murder be set aside and the appellant be retried on the charge of murder.

Orders

Orders of the court

The conviction for murder be set aside and the appellant be retried on the charge of murder.

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.