R v Spajic - [2011] QCA 232

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Spajic [2011] QCA 232

PARTIES:

R
v
SPAJIC, Mark Allan
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 234 of 2010
SC No 814 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter – where the appellant argued that the evidence in general was of an unsatisfactory nature with discrepancies and inadequacies plain on the record – where the appellant argued that no reasonable assessment of the evidence allowed the exclusion of the defences in s 267 and s 271(2) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 267, s 271(2)

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
R v Cuskelly [2009] QCA 375, cited
R v Pangilinan [2001] 1 Qd R 56; [2001] QCA 81, cited

COUNSEL:

M A Green for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

FRASER JA: The appellant was charged with murdering Mr Darren Atkinson, unlawfully wounding Mr Damian Smith, and unlawfully assaulting Ms Jennifer Schoer. The jury returned a directed verdict of acquittal on the wounding charge. The jury found the appellant not guilty of common assault and not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

The ground of the appellant’s appeal against his manslaughter conviction is that the jury verdict cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. That ground raises the question whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty.[1] It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that it was not open because the evidence in general was of an unsatisfactory nature, with discrepancies and inadequacies plain on the record, and because no reasonable assessment of the evidence allowed the exclusion of the defences in the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (“the Code”), s 267 (defence of dwelling) and s 271(2) (self-defence against unprovoked assault).
[1]MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 614 - 615 [25] per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Callinan JJ, and at 624 [59] per McHugh. Gummow and Kirby JJ, applying M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

I will discuss the issues after first summarising the relevant evidence in the Crown case.

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 Spajic

Details

AGLC: R v Spajic [2011] QCA 232
Case: [2011] QCA 232
Decision Date: 13 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought before the Court by the appellant, Spajic, who was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. The appeal contended that the evidence presented in the trial was unsatisfactory and contained discrepancies and inadequacies. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to allow the jury to exclude the defences under sections 267 and 271(2) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The appeal sought to challenge the reasonableness of the jury's verdict.

The court was required to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter. The appeal also sought to determine if the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The court had to consider the nature and quality of the evidence, including any discrepancies, and assess whether these could be resolved in favour of the prosecution's case.

The court found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court noted that it was open to the jury to resolve any discrepancies or inadequacies in the evidence in favour of the prosecution. The court held that the jury was entitled to reject the defences proposed by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as the court found the verdict to be reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The appellant's conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Spajic [2011] QCA 232
PARTIES:	R v SPAJIC, Mark Allan (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 234 of 2010 SC No 814 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 May 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser and Chesterman JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter – where the appellant argued that the evidence in general was of an unsatisfactory nature with discrepancies and inadequacies plain on the record – where the appellant argued that no reasonable assessment of the evidence allowed the exclusion of the defences in s 267 and s 271(2) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 267, s 271(2) MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied R v Cuskelly [2009] QCA 375, cited R v Pangilinan [2001] 1 Qd R 56; [2001] QCA 81, cited
COUNSEL:	M A Green for the appellant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent