R v Thomas - [1993] QCA 391

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 391

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 266 of 1993
Brisbane

[R. v. Thomas]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N
-v-
GEOFFREY RONALD THOMAS

Appellant

The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Thomas

Judgment delivered the 13th day of October, 1993
Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Evidence - inconsistent evidence of witness whether error of law - whether error in direction to jury.

Counsel:S. Herbert Q.C. for appellant

D. Bullock for respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for appellant

Director of Prosecutions for respondent

Hearing date: 7th October, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 266 of 1993

Brisbane

Before The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Thomas

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

-v-

GEOFFREY RONALD THOMAS

Appellant

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered the 13th day of October, 1993
           This is an appeal against a conviction of murder. Seven grounds of appeal were raised, but we understand only two of them to have been seriously pressed.
           The following persons have some involvement in the events in question:
           Mr Milligan (the deceased)

Mr Thomas (the appellant who lived in flat 4)
Mr Bryant (the occupant of flat 3)
Ms Anderson (Thomas's defacto wife who lived with him in flat 4)

On 20th August, 1992 Milligan was stabbed to death. A truncated version of the Crown case is that Milligan was stabbed at a place about 400 metres from the flats in question. Shortly after the stabbing Thomas arrived home at the flat carrying a knife. It had blood on it. He was wearing a sloppy joe, singlet, pants and jeans, also soaked in blood (later found to be of the same type as Milligan's). He was also wearing thongs and left them in the yard at the foot of the stairs. He went into his flat. He admitted to both Bryant and Anderson that he had stabbed the other man. They told him he shouldn't have done it. He removed his clothes and put them on the floor. He went downstairs for a shower. Bryant later picked up the clothes, walked across Potts Street and put them in a wheelie bin. Anderson and Bryant telephoned the police from a phone booth.

After Thomas had been apprehended, whilst in a police vehicle on his way to the police station, he remarked "He won't be rooting my missus any more". A video taped interview occurred later, during which he indicated that he did not know whether he was responsible for the incident. He did not deny involvement, but did not remember or admit any incident with Milligan. He was at that stage affected by heavy consumption of alcohol and drugs.
There was evidence establishing jealousy or resentment on the part of Thomas with respect to suspected sexual conduct between Anderson and Milligan. There was also evidence of further hostility on Thomas's part towards Milligan in that…

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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [1993] QCA 391
Case: [1993] QCA 391
Decision Date: 13 October 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Geoffrey Ronald Thomas against his conviction of murder. The case, R v Thomas, involved serious allegations and a complex web of evidence surrounding the stabbing death of Mr Milligan. Thomas was found to have returned to his residence shortly after the stabbing, covered in blood and wearing clothing that matched the blood type of the deceased. His de facto wife, Ms Anderson, and another resident, Mr Bryant, were present and witnessed his admission of involvement in the stabbing. The appeal raised several grounds, primarily focusing on the credibility and admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given to the jury by the trial judge.

The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of inconsistent witness testimony and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury contained any legal errors. Specifically, the appellant argued that certain observations made by Mr Bryant, who claimed to have witnessed events implicating Thomas, could not have been made from his stated position. Additionally, the appellant contested a part of the trial judge's direction to the jury, suggesting it might have misdirected them regarding the burden of proof in relation to the accused's alibi. The court examined whether these issues constituted errors of law that warranted overturning the conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the grounds of appeal. Regarding the witness observations, while it was established that Mr Bryant could not have made his observations from the position he described, this did not necessarily render his entire testimony unreliable. The court held that it was within the jury's purview to assess the credibility of the evidence. Concerning the jury direction, the Court found that the trial judge's direction was appropriate and consistent with the requirements for a conviction, ensuring that the jury understood the necessity of being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

Orders