SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Smith (aka Stella) [2021] QCA 139
PARTIES:
R
v
SMITH, Mark Anthony (aka STELLA, Mark Anthony)
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
CA No 194 of 2019
SC No 45 of 2015DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 23 July 2019 (North J)
DELIVERED ON:
Date of Orders: 5 May 2021
Date of Publication of Reasons: 29 June 2021DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5 May 2021
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Bond JA and Davis J
ORDERS:
Orders delivered: 5 May 2021
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the conviction for murder.
3. A retrial be ordered.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant admitted to killing a man and was charged with murder – where the appellant was referred to the Mental Health Court which ordered that there be a trial by jury due to factual uncertainties – where the appellant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter – where the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury trial – where the defence of diminished responsibility under s 304A of the Criminal Code was raised at trial – where the appellant called a psychiatrist to give evidence of the appellant’s psychiatric condition at the time of the offending – where the Crown called a psychiatrist in rebuttal evidence – where the trial judge did not direct the jury on the meaning of the phrases “abnormality of mind” or “substantially impaired” as relevant to s 304A(1) of the Criminal Code – where the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in law by failing to direct the jury on the meaning of the phrase “substantially impaired” as relevant to s 304A of the Criminal Code – whether in the alternative, the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury on the meaning of the phrase “substantially impaired” occasioned a miscarriage of justice and deprived the appellant of a reasonable chance of acquittal
Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 23, s 26, s 27, s 291, s 293, s 300, s 302, s 304, s 304A
Criminal Code and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1961 (Qld)
Homicide Act 1957 (UK)
Homicide Bill 1957 (UK)
Offenders Parole Amendment Act 1961 (Qld)Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue(NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, cited
Carter v Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] 1 Qd R 111; [2013] QCA 140, cited
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55, cited
HKSAR v Jutting [2018] HKCA 5, cited
McKell v The Queen (2019) 264 CLR 307; [2019] HCA 5, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited
R v A2 (2019) 93 ALJR 1106; [2019] HCA…
Continue reading R v Smith (aka Stella)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Smith (aka Stella) [2021] QCA 139
- Case
- [2021] QCA 139
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the trial judge erred in law by not directing the jury on the meaning of the phrase "substantially impaired" and, if so, whether this omission led to a miscarriage of justice that deprived the appellant of a reasonable chance of acquittal. The court had to determine if the appellant's right to a fair trial was compromised by the judge's failure to properly instruct the jury on a key aspect of the law relevant to the diminished responsibility defence.
The court found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the meaning of "substantially impaired" constituted a significant error. This omission meant that the jury was not adequately informed about the legal criteria necessary to consider the defence of diminished responsibility. The court held that this non-direction resulted in a substantial injustice, as it deprived the appellant of a reasonable chance of acquittal. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction for murder. A retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial with proper legal directions to the jury.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the conviction for murder was set aside, and a retrial was ordered. These orders were delivered on 5 May 2021.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders delivered: 5 May 2021
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the conviction for murder.
3. A retrial be 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.