Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 23 April 2021 (Rafter AJ)
DELIVERED ON:
31 October 2023
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 August 2023
JUDGES:
Bowskill CJ and Morrison JA and Crow J
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of murder following a trial by jury – where the case against the appellant was particularised on the basis that he was liable for murder on three alternative bases: either as the principal offender under s 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as an aider under s 7(1)(b) or s 7(1)(c), or by reason of participating in a common unlawful purpose under s 8 – where, on appeal, the appellant contended that a miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the trial judge failing to direct the jury that they were required to be unanimous as to the basis upon which the appellant was guilty – whether a unanimity direction was required
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the case against the appellant was a circumstantial one – where, on appeal, the appellant contended that the medical and forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, did not support the appellant’s direct involvement in the stabbing, and that it was also not open to the jury to find the appellant guilty as an aider or on the basis of the prosecution of a common unlawful purpose – whether the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence
Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(a), s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(c), s 8, s 644(1)
[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 Spencer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Spencer [2023] QCA 210
Case
[2023] QCA 210
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Spencer involved the appellant, Trevor Spencer, who was convicted of the murder of Gary Ryan. The appeal centred on the contention that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury to reach a unanimous decision on the basis of the appellant’s guilt, whether as the principal offender, an aider, or a participant in a common unlawful purpose. The appellant further argued that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence, particularly the medical and forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, which did not conclusively link him to the crime. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the court.
The primary legal issues addressed in the appeal were whether the trial judge's failure to provide a unanimity direction constituted a misdirection or non-direction that could lead to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence presented. The court had to consider the entire body of evidence and the manner in which the Crown presented its case to the jury to determine the validity of these arguments.
The court found that the failure to give a unanimity direction did not result in a miscarriage of justice. It reasoned that the evidence presented was circumstantial, and the jury was properly instructed on the principles of circumstantial evidence. The court held that the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant was involved in the crime based on the evidence presented, including the appellant’s association with the other accused, his presence at the scene, and the sequence of events leading to the murder. The court also found that the medical and forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, did support the appellant's direct involvement, aiding, or participation in the crime.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
In order to address ground 1 and ground 2, it is necessary to have regard to the whole of the evidence at the trial, and the way in which the Crown’s case against the appellant was put to the jury.The evidence at the trial The deceased man, Mr Ryan, had previously been in a relationship with a woman, Marilyn, with whom he had a daughter, A. She was 15 at the time he was killed. Mr Ryan and Marilyn separated when their daughter was about one year old. There were disputes about custody, although A lived with her father for most of the time as she was growing up. At the time of Mr Ryan’s death, Marilyn was in a relationship with Mark Crump. They had two children of their own, and Mark Crump also had other children from another relationship. They lived in Orange (New South Wales). Mark Crump’s father, Stephen Crump, lived in Rockhampton. The appellant, Trevor Spencer, was friends with Mark Crump and his partner, Marilyn. He lived in Dubbo. At the time of his death, Mr Ryan lived in a house in Mundubbera, with his mother and his daughter. Next to the house was a large shed, and at the side of the shed was a small bathroom with a toilet and sink inside. There were a number of vehicles outside the shed, and also parts of vehicles (doors and bonnets) as well as tyres. The custody dispute was ongoing in the lead up to Mr Ryan’s death. For some months from late 2015 to mid-2016, A lived with her mother and Mark Crump, before returning to live with her father. The joint admissions at the trial included that:“On 15 June 2016 an order was made in the Family Court stating that [A] was to live with her mother [Marilyn] and would stay with her father for half of each school holidays.On 15 July 2016 a Family Court recovery order was made that [A] was to be returned to her mother.On 29 July 2016 a Family Court recovery order was made that [A] was to be returned to her mother. The order confirmed that the previous order made on 15 July 2016 was to remain in existence until executed.” A refused to return to live with her mother. That was in circumstances where, as it was also admitted:“On 14 July 2016 [A] attended Bundaberg police station and made a sexual assault complaint against Mark Crump. She said that occurred during the six months that she lived at [address in Orange, NSW] between Christmas 2015 and the beginning of July 2016. This information was forward to New South Wales Police.” Then, it was admitted:“On 12 August 2016 an order was made in the Family Court that [A] was to live with her father, the deceased. It was further ordered that the previous orders made on 15 June, 15 July and 29 July 2016 were set aside.” On 23 August 2016, Mr Ryan was at home with his mother and his daughter. It was admitted at the trial that:“At about 10.30am, Gary Ryan said to [his mother] ‘I’ll go and see what this strange looking man wants’ and he went outside.At about 11.15am, [his mother] went to get Gary Ryan from outside as he had not returned. She walked around to the front of the shed and saw Gary lying on the floor in the toilet block. Gary Ryan was lying on his right side in front of the toilet bowl. He said ‘mum I’m dying’. She observed wounds to the back of his head and neck.”