R v Taz; R v SED

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v TAZ; R v SED [2023] QSC 292

PARTIES:

R
v
TAZ

R
v
SED

FILE NO:

Indictment No 1731 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2023; 5 December 2023; 6 December 2023; 7 December 2023; 11 December 2023

JUDGE:

Cooper J

VERDICT:

TAZ guilty of murder.

SED not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – MURDER – INTENTION TO KILL OR CAUSE SERIOUS NON-FATAL INJURY – where the two defendants were each 14 years old at the time of the alleged offence – where a friend of the deceased offered to sell the defendants cannabis – where a disagreement arising from the deal occurred in or near a toilet block – where the defendants followed the boy who sold them the cannabis from the toilet block for some distance – where the boy who sold the cannabis walked passed the deceased and handed him a knife – where the deceased approached the defendants with the knife and knuckledusters – where one of the defendants stabbed the deceased in the chest – where the defendants were charged with murder – where the trial proceeded by a judge sitting without a jury – whether the defendant’s actions in stabbing the deceased were in self-defence – whether the defendant’s actions in stabbing the deceased were as a result of provocation – whether the defendant’s actions in stabbing the deceased were by compulsion – whether the defendant’s actions in stabbing the deceased were unlawful – whether the defendant who inflicted the stab wound intended to at least cause grievous bodily harm – whether the involvement of the defendant who did not inflict the stab wound makes him criminally responsible by aiding, enabling or encouraging him or that the stabbing was a probable consequence of an unlawful common purpose

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 24, s 31, s 245, s 246, s 268, s 271, s 272, s 273, s 291, s 293, s 300, s 302, s 303, s 304, s 576, s 615, s 644

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21A, s 93A

R v Dayney (No 1) (2020) 10 QR 638, cited
R v Dayney (No 2) [2023] QCA 62, cited
R v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, cited
R v Kerr [1976] 1 NZLR 335, cited
R v Saxon [2020] QCA 85, cited
R v Vidler (2000) 110 A Crim R 77, cited
R v Wilmot (2006) 165 A Crim R 14, cited
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312, cited

COUNSEL:

C M Cook for the prosecution

P J McCafferty KC, with A I O’Brien and L E Gamble, for the defendant, TAZ

J Robson for the defendant, SED

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the prosecution

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Taz; R v SED and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] QSC 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two teenagers, Taz and SED, were charged with murder in the death of Angus Richard Beaumont. Taz was found to have stabbed Beaumont, while SED was charged for allegedly aiding, enabling, or encouraging Taz, or because the stabbing was a probable consequence of an unlawful common purpose. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court had to determine whether Taz's actions were in self-defence, due to provocation, by compulsion, or unlawful. The court also had to decide if SED was criminally responsible for aiding, enabling, or encouraging Taz, or if the stabbing was a probable consequence of an unlawful common purpose.

The court found that Taz's actions were not in self-defence, due to provocation, or by compulsion, and that they were unlawful. The court also found that SED was not criminally responsible for aiding, enabling, or encouraging Taz, or that the stabbing was a probable consequence of an unlawful common purpose. The court determined that SED was guilty of the unlawful killing of Beaumont, which is manslaughter.

In conclusion, Taz was found guilty of the murder of Beaumont, while SED was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applied. The final orders of the court were that Taz be sentenced for murder and SED be sentenced for manslaughter.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I have given the cases against each defendant and for each defendant separate consideration. I have separately considered the evidence admitted in relation to each defendant and have returned separate verdicts in respect of each defendant.The evidence The following witnesses were called to give evidence in the prosecution case:(a)Detective Sergeant John Fleming;(b)Detective Senior Constable Andrew Childs;(c)Senior Constable Andreas Winnington;(d)Senior Constable Kylie O’Sullivan;(e)Senior Constable Anthea Johnston;(f)NH;(g)ST;(h)NM;(i)Daniel Craig Heggie;(j)Keiron Cundy;(k)Blaine Vette;(l)Lachlan Robertson;(m)SJ; and(n)Dr Bianca Phillips. A number of exhibits were also received in evidence. All were tendered by the prosecution. These included:(a)maps of the area where the events occurred;(b)CCTV footage of the events;(c)a number of still images taken from the CCTV footage;(d)photographs of a bike located by police at a house where TAZ’s father lived approximately 2.3 kilometres from the skate park;(e)a photograph of a $20 note found in SJ’s possession when he attended Redcliffe police station after the events;(f)photographs taken of each defendant by police in March 2020;(g)photographs taken by police of relevant locations around the area of the skate park: a bus stop on Oxley Avenue; the toilet block where the defendants and NH weighed the cannabis; the amphitheatre near the youth centre; and the carpark entrance area where the fatal altercation occurred;(h)a photograph of the knuckledusters Angus was wearing during the altercation;(i)photographs taken by police of the location where backpacks that SJ and ST had with them that evening were found, as well as the contents of those backpacks;(j)a large knife located by police in SJ’s backpack;(k)the recording of a statement made by SED to police when he was arrested;(l)recordings of things said by TAZ when he was located and taken into custody;(m)an extract of text messages sent between SED and an associate shortly after the incident;(n)recordings of conversations which ST and NM had with police;(o)signed police statements made by NM. Pursuant to s 644 of the Criminal Code admissions of fact were made. At the commencement of the trial, the following admissions of fact were made:“1.Those depicted in the CCTV footage on 13 March 2020 are accurately referred to by name.2.On 13 March 2020, Angus Beaumont left home at about 3.30pm.3.Police records indicate:a.At 8.10.43pm on 13 March 2020, [ST] called 000.b.At 8.12.25pm on 13 March 2020, Kieron Cundy called 000.4.At 8.22pm on 13 March 2020, Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) arrived at the scene. Queensland Police were already on the scene when QAS arrived. Paramedics cut Angus Beaumont’s jacket and shirt off and attempted to treat him.5.At 8.28pm Angus Beaumont was transported by ambulance from the scene.6.At 8.30pm the ambulance arrived at the Redcliffe Hospital Emergency Department where Angus Beaumont received further treatment.7.At 9.14pm Angus Beaumont was declared deceased.8.Angus Beaumont’s body was transported to Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services in Brisbane where a postmortem examination was performed by Dr. Bianca Phillips on 15 March 2020.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accordingly, the defence under s 31(1)(d) does not apply to excuse either TAZ’s act, for which SED is criminally responsible under s 7(1)(c), or SED’s acts of aiding which render him criminally responsible. Conclusion on the case against SED I find SED not guilty of the murder of Angus Richard Beaumont. I find SED guilty of the unlawful killing of Angus Richard Beaumont; that is, guilty of manslaughter.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.