R v Streeton - [1997] QCA 178

[1997] QCA 178

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
MOYNIHAN J
DOWSETT J

CA No 99 of 1997

THE QUEEN

STREETON, Paul Wade Appellant

BRISBANE

DATE 04/06/97

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant, Paul Wade Streeton, has appealed against his conviction in the Circuit Court at Cairns on 5 March 1997 of the attempted murder of OT. On the following day he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

At trial, and again before this Court, the sole issue was, and is, whether the evidence was such as to enable a properly instructed jury to find that the appellant had an intention to kill. No complaint is made concerning Her Honour's directions to the jury. However, ground 1 of the notice of the appeal, the only ground which relates to conviction, states: "(1) That I always maintained I never had an intent to kill and that the Court was wrong in finding I had an intent to kill", and that was elaborated upon in a written submission placed before the Court which, in so far as it related to conviction, stated only, "There is a total absence of evidence to justify the conviction of attempted murder. You can not infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I specifically intended murder from my actions, as my stated intentions to cause grievous bodily harm or death are fully consistent with what I did."

In oral statements to this Court, the appellant said that he had indicated, or would indicate, that he accepted that he was guilty of attempted murder if the prosecution had accepted that statements to police were true and he added that he knew the child could die but did not know what the outcome would be. His motive, he said, was not to kill the child but retribution against society.

The evidence which was, for present purposes, uncontested, demonstrated that the victim, OT, a child aged six years and two months, was not known to the appellant. Three days prior to the offence the appellant went to a service station in Cairns and purchased a fuel drum which was filled with two stroke mixture. He also purchased a cigarette lighter at that time and after initially storing the fuel, the two stroke mixture, the appellant abandoned it, seemingly because he was unsure as to how it would operate and how effective its operation would be when placed upon a human being and lit.

In statements to police he said that describing that a two stroke mixture was actually fuel for lawnmowers, "and I thought it would probably be flammable but I wasn't certain so I ditched it" - I have omitted some parts of the passage - and later, again omitting some parts, "I didn't want to sort of take any chances so I sort of just got sort of petrol."

On the day of the offence the appellant purchased another five litre petrol tin, this time having it filled with super grade petrol. The boy, OT, was playing tiggy with other grade…

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 Streeton

Details

AGLC: R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178
Case: [1997] QCA 178
Decision Date: 4 June 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Streeton, the appellant, Paul Wade Streeton, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the attempted murder of a child, OT. Streeton was convicted in the Circuit Court at Cairns and sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issue was whether the evidence supported a finding that Streeton intended to kill the child. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's conclusion of intent to kill. Streeton's argument that the evidence did not justify a conviction for attempted murder was rejected. The premeditation, choice of accelerant, and the act itself, along with Streeton's immediate request for the death penalty, were sufficient for the jury to infer an intention to kill.

Streeton also sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge incorrectly found he lacked remorse. The Court found no merit in these arguments. The trial judge was not obliged to accept any of Streeton's claims of remorse, and the sentence was deemed appropriate given the severity of the crime. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence, affirming the original judgment.

Orders