R v Stott and Van Embden - [2001] QCA 313

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Stott & Van Embden [2001] QCA 313

PARTIES: R
v
STOTT, Jonathon Quinton Duncan
(appellant)
VAN EMBDEN, Franciscus John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 372 of 2000
CA No 377 of 2000
SC No 623 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 7 August 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 30 May 2001

JUDGES: McPherson JA, Muir J, Atkinson J.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER: Appeals against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – whether the learned Trial Judge was correct in leaving the Crown case of manslaughter for consideration by the jury, on a basis other than criminal negligence.

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – ACCIDENT – GENERALLY – whether the learned Trial Judge correctly directed the jury in regard to the interaction between s 23(1)(b) and s 289 of the Code.

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – whether a person could be held liable for the death of another to whom they supplied heroin when the cause of death is a heroin overdose.

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1), s 23(1)(b), s 236, s 284, s 289, s 311.

Callaghan v The Queen (1952) 87 CLR 115, applied.
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209, considered.
R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, considered.
R v Dabelstein [1966] Qd R 411, considered.
R v Hodgetts & Jackson [1990] 1 Qd R 456, applied.
R v Scarth [1945] St R Qd 38, considered.
R v Sherrington v Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, considered.
R v Taiters, ex p Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333, applied.
R v van den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137, considered.

COUNSEL: A J Rafter for the appellants
M J Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The appellants Jonathan Stott and Francis van Embden were tried for murder in the Supreme Court, but found guilty of the manslaughter of Jason Bettridge, whose body was found in the Brisbane River below a bridge near Fernvale at about 10 am on Wednesday, 3 February 1999. The watch he was wearing had stopped at 10.20, and the evidence suggested it would have done so after being immersed in water for about three to 12 minutes.

Jason Bettridge, who was 27 years old, had been living with his mother at Clermont, but on the afternoon of Monday 1 February 1999 he flew to Brisbane in preparation for an appearance at the Mental Health Tribunal on the following morning. He had originally…

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 Stott and Van Embden

Details

AGLC: R v Stott and Van Embden [2001] QCA 313
Case: [2001] QCA 313
Decision Date: 7 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stott and Van Embden, the appellants, Stott and Van Embden, were convicted by a jury of manslaughter under the provisions of the Criminal Code. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge correctly handled the Crown's case, specifically in leaving the matter of manslaughter for the jury's consideration based on grounds other than criminal negligence. Another significant legal question was whether the trial judge correctly guided the jury concerning the interplay between sections 23(1)(b) and 289 of the Code. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a person could be held criminally liable for the death of another to whom they supplied heroin if the cause of death was a heroin overdose.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that the judge did not misdirect them in relation to the Crown's case of manslaughter. The judge correctly allowed the jury to consider manslaughter based on other grounds, not solely on criminal negligence. The court also determined that the trial judge accurately instructed the jury regarding the interaction between sections 23(1)(b) and 289 of the Code. Furthermore, the court held that a person could indeed be held liable for the death of another if they supplied the heroin that led to the fatal overdose.

Given the court's findings, the appeals against the convictions were dismissed. The appellants' arguments concerning the trial judge's handling of the case and the legal directions provided to the jury did not substantiate a ground for overturning the convictions. The legal principles applied by the trial judge were deemed correct, and thus the convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals 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 Stott & Van Embden [2001] QCA 313
PARTIES:	R v STOTT, Jonathon Quinton Duncan (appellant) VAN EMBDEN, Franciscus John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 372 of 2000 CA No 377 of 2000 SC No 623 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 August 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Muir J, Atkinson J. Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeals against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – whether the learned Trial Judge was correct in leaving the Crown case of manslaughter for consideration by the jury, on a basis other than criminal negligence. CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – ACCIDENT – GENERALLY – whether the learned Trial Judge correctly directed the jury in regard to the interaction between s 23(1)(b) and s 289 of the Code. CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – MANSLAUGHTER – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – whether a person could be held liable for the death of another to whom they supplied heroin when the cause of death is a heroin overdose. Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1), s 23(1)(b), s 236, s 284, s 289, s 311. Callaghan v The Queen (1952) 87 CLR 115, applied. Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209, considered. R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, considered. R v Dabelstein [1966] Qd R 411, considered. R v Hodgetts & Jackson [1990] 1 Qd R 456, applied. R v Scarth [1945] St R Qd 38, considered. R v Sherrington v Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, considered. R v Taiters, ex p Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333, applied. R v van den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137, considered.
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellants M J Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent