R v Speedy - [2017] QCA 222

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Speedy [2017] QCA 222

PARTIES:

R
v
SPEEDY, Robert George
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 270 of 2015
SC No 747 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 October 2015 (Ann Lyons J)

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Dalton J

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of attempted murder – where the appellant and his co-offender carried out armed robberies at a tavern – where police officers tracked the appellant and the co-offender to an acreage property – where the appellant fire multiple shots from his firearm in darkness towards a police officer, one of which hit the police officer – where a sample of the appellant’s blood taken shortly after the events contained drugs, including methylamphetamine and alprazolam – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of attempted murder

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1)

R v Clapham[2017] QCA 99, cited

COUNSEL:

G M McGuire, with K E McMahon, for the appellant
V A Loury QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: The appellant was charged on indictment with attempted murder (count 1), an alternative charge of unlawful wounding with intent to prevent his lawful arrest (count 2), armed robbery in company with personal violence (count 3), and two counts of armed robbery (counts 4 and 5). The appellant’s plea of guilty at the beginning of his trial to the alternative charge of wounding with intent to prevent his lawful arrest in count 2 was not accepted by the Crown in discharge of count 1 on the indictment. The appellant pleaded guilty to counts 3, 4, and 5.

The evidence in the Crown case at trial established that, after the appellant and his co-offender carried out the armed robberies at a tavern charged in counts 3, 4, and 5, police officers tracked them to an acreage property. Sergeant Hamrey called out a command and the appellant fired a .22 calibre rifle six times. One of the projectiles hit Sergeant Hamrey, travelling through his cheek and exiting behind his left ear. The only issue at the trial was whether the appellant had the intention to kill when he fired the rifle.

The appellant appeals against his conviction of attempted murder upon the ground that the guilty verdict is “unsafe and unsatisfactory”. The argument proceeded on the footing that this contention invoked the ground of appeal in s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code, “that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that…

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 Speedy

Details

AGLC: R v Speedy [2017] QCA 222
Case: [2017] QCA 222
Decision Date: 6 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of attempted murder, along with his co-offender, following a series of armed robberies at a tavern. The police tracked the appellant and his co-offender to an acreage property, where the appellant fired multiple shots from his firearm towards a police officer in the darkness, one of which struck the officer. A blood sample taken from the appellant shortly after the events revealed the presence of drugs, including methylamphetamine and alprazolam. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The legal issue before the court was whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of attempted murder. The court had to consider whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and whether there was any error in the trial that could have affected the outcome. The court noted that the evidence showed that the appellant fired multiple shots towards a police officer, one of which struck the officer, and that a blood sample taken from the appellant contained drugs that could have impaired his judgment and actions.

After carefully considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the verdict was reasonably open to the jury and that there was no error in the trial that could have affected the outcome. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of attempted murder and that the appellant's appeal against conviction should be dismissed. The court further noted that the appellant's actions were deliberate and dangerous, and that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and that the appellant's conviction for attempted murder would stand. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the impact it had on the victim, the police officer, and the community. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that those who commit serious offences are held accountable for their actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction is 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 Speedy [2017] QCA 222
PARTIES:	R v SPEEDY, Robert George (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 270 of 2015 SC No 747 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 October 2015 (Ann Lyons J)
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Dalton J
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of attempted murder – where the appellant and his co-offender carried out armed robberies at a tavern – where police officers tracked the appellant and the co-offender to an acreage property – where the appellant fire multiple shots from his firearm in darkness towards a police officer, one of which hit the police officer – where a sample of the appellant’s blood taken shortly after the events contained drugs, including methylamphetamine and alprazolam – whether upon the whole of the evidence it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of attempted murder Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) R v Clapham[2017] QCA 99, cited
COUNSEL:	G M McGuire, with K E McMahon, for the appellant V A Loury QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent