R v Taylor - [2017] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taylor [2017] QCA 169

PARTIES:

R
v
TAYLOR, Tyson John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2016
SC No 511 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 May 2016

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – MATTERS AVAILABLE TO JURY IN JURY ROOM – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where three prosecution witnesses gave evidence that the appellant confessed to them that he committed the offences – where the jury requested that the three witnesses’ evidence be replayed to them or the transcripts be provided to them – where the prosecution and defence counsel agreed that the transcripts be provided to the jury – where the trial judge did not provide the jury with directions or warnings as to the use of the transcripts – where no transcript of the appellant’s evidence in relation to the three witnesses or reminder of that evidence was given to the jury – whether these circumstances resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; [1977] HCA 43, cited
R v Rawlings; R v Broadbent [1995] 1 All ER 580, cited
R v Tichowitsch [2007] 2 Qd R 462; [2006] QCA 569, cited

COUNSEL:

S C Holt QC for the appellant
V A Loury QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Dalton J. I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by her Honour.
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Dalton J and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.
DALTON J: The appellant appeals against his conviction on 24 May 2016 of attempting to kill Anthony John McGrath on 8 October 2012, and of murdering him on 21 May 2013. An appeal against sentence was abandoned.
Both the appellant and his victim were in thrall to a woman named Susan Stewart. The Crown case was that the appellant killed Mr McGrath because Susan Stewart wanted him dead. The evidence was that Mr McGrath gave Susan Stewart large amounts of money before his death, believing her to be pregnant with his child. She believed he had changed his will in her favour, and indeed he had visited a solicitor and given instructions to make her a beneficiary.
The Crown case was that the appellant first attempted to murder Mr McGrath by…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2017] QCA 169
Case: [2017] QCA 169
Decision Date: 11 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taylor was heard in the court where the appellant was convicted of various criminal offences. The appeal was centred on alleged irregularities in relation to the jury, specifically concerning the handling of witness testimonies and the jury's access to transcripts during their deliberations. The appellant contended that the trial judge's failure to provide the jury with adequate directions and warnings about using the transcripts, along with the absence of a transcript of the appellant's evidence, contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the absence of appropriate directions and the non-provision of a transcript of the appellant's evidence in relation to the three prosecution witnesses' testimonies constituted a miscarriage of justice. This required an assessment of whether these procedural shortcomings compromised the fairness of the trial or the reliability of the jury's verdict. The court also had to consider whether these issues, individually or collectively, were so significant as to warrant a new trial or an appeal being upheld.

The court found that while there were procedural irregularities, they did not reach the threshold of a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide the jury with directions and warnings regarding the use of the transcripts was a procedural error. However, the court found that this error did not materially affect the fairness of the trial or the reliability of the jury's verdict. Furthermore, the absence of a transcript of the appellant's evidence was not deemed to have significantly prejudiced the appellant. The court concluded that the overall fairness of the trial was not compromised to the extent that a new trial was warranted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of procedural correctness in criminal trials but also underscored that not every procedural irregularity leads to a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Taylor [2017] QCA 169
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Tyson John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 168 of 2016 SC No 511 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 May 2016
DELIVERED ON:	11 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – MATTERS AVAILABLE TO JURY IN JURY ROOM – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where three prosecution witnesses gave evidence that the appellant confessed to them that he committed the offences – where the jury requested that the three witnesses’ evidence be replayed to them or the transcripts be provided to them – where the prosecution and defence counsel agreed that the transcripts be provided to the jury – where the trial judge did not provide the jury with directions or warnings as to the use of the transcripts – where no transcript of the appellant’s evidence in relation to the three witnesses or reminder of that evidence was given to the jury – whether these circumstances resulted in a miscarriage of justice Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; [1977] HCA 43, cited R v Rawlings; R v Broadbent [1995] 1 All ER 580, cited R v Tichowitsch [2007] 2 Qd R 462; [2006] QCA 569, cited
COUNSEL:	S C Holt QC for the appellant V A Loury QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent