R v Taylor

Case [2021] QCA 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taylor [2021] QCA 15

PARTIES:

R
v
TAYLOR, Jason Douglas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 152 of 2019
SC No 17 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 15 May 2019 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2020

JUDGES:

Fraser and Mullins JJA and Applegarth J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of murder – where there was evidence that the deceased was beaten up at a unit, driven to a remote location (Mt Spec), and pushed down a steep hill where large rocks were thrown down at him – where the Crown case was that the appellant was guilty of murder either upon the basis that he did an act which constituted the offence by throwing a rock at the deceased on Mt Spec (Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(a)) or upon the basis that he aided another person in committing the offence (s 7(1)(b) or s 7(1)(c)) – where the Crown case was presented on the basis that the jury might find that either or both of the assault at the unit or the assault at Mt Spec was a substantial cause of the deceased’s death – where the appellant made many admissions in police interviews about his presence at and involvement in the events at the unit and at Mt Spec – where the Crown case under s 7(1)(a) depended upon evidence given by a prisoner who shared a cell with the appellant about a confession the appellant made that he threw rocks at the deceased at Mt Spec – where the appellant submits that this evidence should be excluded from consideration in the Crown case on the basis that the jury should have harboured doubts about its truthfulness – where the appellant submits that it was not open to the jury to convict him without that evidence on any basis – whether the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the question trail provided to the jury contained a series of questions directed towards liability for aiding under s 7(1)(b) or s 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code – where the appellant submits that these questions did not make it clear that the appellant must have held an intention that his acts were done for the purpose of aiding in the murder at the time such acts were done – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by permitting the jury to reason towards conviction in the way set out in that part of the question trail

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS…

Continue reading R v Taylor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Taylor [2021] QCA 15
Case
[2021] QCA 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of R v Taylor was heard by the court, focusing on the appellant's conviction for murder. The appellant was found guilty of either committing the act that caused the death or aiding in the commission of the murder. The key issue was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The Crown's case relied heavily on a confession from a cellmate, which the appellant argued should have been excluded due to its questionable credibility.

The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the jury was misdirected regarding the necessity of the appellant's intent when aiding in the murder. Additionally, the court examined if the jury was correctly guided on the presentation of the Crown's case, particularly regarding the speculative nature of attributing the deceased's death to the assault at the unit. The court also considered whether the lies told by the appellant during police interviews could be used as evidence of his guilt of murder and whether the post-offence conduct of the appellant, specifically a document requesting a false alibi, should have been subject to an Edwards direction.

In its reasoning, the court found that the jury was adequately directed on the necessary elements of aiding in the commission of murder and that the evidence, including the cellmate's testimony, was sufficient to support the verdict. The court also determined that the speculative nature of attributing the death to the assault at the unit did not necessitate a new trial. The court held that the lies told by the appellant could be used to assess his credibility but not as direct evidence of guilt. Lastly, the court concluded that no miscarriage of justice occurred due to the lack of an Edwards direction regarding the post-offence conduct.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction for murder.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Officers Folett and Smith were stationed at Ingham. They had received information to be on the lookout for the car. Folett gave evidence of having chased the car twice on 16 August and once on 17 August. During the second chase Folett observed that there was only one person in the car. Smith gave evidence to similar effect. He was not sure whether he was able to see how many people were in the car but his recollection was that there was only one person in it. Eventually the car was located at a motel. Smith gave evidence that he found a satchel and some clothing on the floor of the front passenger compartment of the car. Inside the satchel he found a birth certificate and a Medicare card in the name of the appellant. Collins, a sergeant with long experience working as a fingerprint expert, gave evidence that some of the fingerprints and palm prints belonging to the appellant found on the car were found on the driver’s window, whereas none of the prints belonging to Huxley were found in that area of the car. Folett and Smith gave evidence that at the beginning of the third chase at Ingham the car accelerated away, overtaking a different car that Folett said was driven by Doyle, which had stopped; Smith gave evidence that Huxley was a passenger in that car.Davison’s evidence Davison gave the following evidence. He shared a prison cell with the appellant in late September 2015. Whilst they were together in the prison cell the appellant wrote and gave to Davison two diagrams and a note. The diagrams are headed “1st Time” and “2nd Time Went Back”. The diagrams sketch what appears to be the same section of road. What appears to be a car is sketched in each diagram. In the second diagram the car is angled across the road in a way which might allow its headlights to illuminate an area beyond one side of the road. In the first diagram the word “alive” is adjacent to a stick figure off the right hand side of the road. In the second diagram there are two stick figures adjacent to the letter “A”. One stick figure is connected by a series of dots to the edge of the road at which the vehicle is pointing; that stick figure is adjacent to the words “Thrown down”. A series of dots connects that stick figure with the second stick figure, which is further away from the road and near the word “still”. Beneath the stick figures are the words, “Then Slammed with rocks till Dead”. The information conveyed by those diagrams is consistent with statements the appellant made in his police interviews. The note is headed “What I want you to say”. In the context of the appellant’s admissions in the later police interviews, the note may readily be understood as a request to the unnamed addressee to manufacture an alibi for the appellant in relation to the second trip to Crystal Creek. The note suggests that the addressee make statements to the effect that the addressee saw the appellant late at night at a service station, followed the appellant to Townsville and subsequently back to the service station with Huxley and Doyle who were then to drive to Crystal Creek, gave the appellant a lift to Ingham, and waited there with the appellant until Huxley and Doyle arrived; and that all of them then went to a motel where Huxley told the appellant that Mr McCabe was dead and not to say anything.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.