R v Teichmann - [2014] QCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Teichmann [2014] QCA 50

PARTIES:

R
v
TEICHMANN, Jamie Rex
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 114 of 2013
SC No 278 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

Allow the appeal.1.

Set aside the verdict of guilty.2.

Order a retrial.3.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury – where the appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence of two witnesses as admissions he had made was unreliable – where the jury was properly instructed as to how to approach the evidence, given its deficiencies – whether it was open for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury – where the appellant denied assaulting the deceased – where, on the version of events most favourable to the appellant, there was evidence of a physical attack by the deceased – where defence counsel accepted that provocation was not open – whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave the partial defence of provocation to the jury – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304, s 668E

Huynh v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 434; (2013) 295 ALR 624; [2013] HCA 6, cited
James v The Queen [2014] HCA 6, followed
Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen [1963] AC 220, cited
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, followed
R v Buttigieg (1993) A Crim R 21; [1993] QCA 214, distinguished
R v Getachew (2012) 248 CLR 22; (2012) 286 ALR 196; [2012] HCA 10, cited
R v Martin[2011] QCA 342, followed
R v Pangilinan [2001] 1 Qd R 56; [1999] QCA 528, cited
Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, cited
Stingel v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61, followed
Van Den Hoek (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, followed

COUNSEL:

E S Wilson QC, with L M Dollar, for the appellant (pro bono)
A W Moynihan QC, with NW Needham, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The appellant was convicted by a jury of murdering Michael Manson…

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 Teichmann

Details

AGLC: R v Teichmann [2014] QCA 50
Case: [2014] QCA 50
Decision Date: 21 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, given the unreliability of certain witness evidence and the absence of any direction on the partial defence of provocation. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable because the evidence of two witnesses, who testified that the appellant had made admissions, was unreliable. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury on the partial defence of provocation.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, given the deficiencies in the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the partial defence of provocation to the jury. The court found that the jury had been properly instructed on how to approach the unreliable evidence, and that it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. However, the court found that the trial judge had erred in not leaving the partial defence of provocation to the jury, and that this error was not a minor or trivial one.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the court ordered a retrial. The court found that the error in not directing the jury on the partial defence of provocation was a substantial one, and that it was open to the jury to conclude that the appellant was not guilty of murder if they had been properly directed on the partial defence. The court found that the error was not a minor or trivial one, and that it was likely to have had a significant impact on the jury's deliberations. The court found that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, and that a retrial was necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Allow the appeal.1.

Set aside the verdict of guilty.2.

Order a retrial.3.

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 Teichmann [2014] QCA 50
PARTIES:	R v TEICHMANN, Jamie Rex (appellant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 114 of 2013 SC No 278 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Fraser JJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Allow the appeal.1. Set aside the verdict of guilty.2. Order a retrial.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury – where the appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence of two witnesses as admissions he had made was unreliable – where the jury was properly instructed as to how to approach the evidence, given its deficiencies – whether it was open for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder – whether the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury – where the appellant denied assaulting the deceased – where, on the version of events most favourable to the appellant, there was evidence of a physical attack by the deceased – where defence counsel accepted that provocation was not open – whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave the partial defence of provocation to the jury – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304, s 668E Huynh v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 434; (2013) 295 ALR 624; [2013] HCA 6, cited James v The Queen [2014] HCA 6, followed Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen [1963] AC 220, cited Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67, followed R v Buttigieg (1993) A Crim R 21; [1993] QCA 214, distinguished R v Getachew (2012) 248 CLR 22; (2012) 286 ALR 196; [2012] HCA 10, cited R v Martin[2011] QCA 342, followed R v Pangilinan [2001] 1 Qd R 56; [1999] QCA 528, cited Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, cited Stingel v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61, followed Van Den Hoek (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, followed
COUNSEL:	E S Wilson QC, with L M Dollar, for the appellant (pro bono) A W Moynihan QC, with NW Needham, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent