R v Turner - [2010] QCA 156

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turner [2010] QCA 156

PARTIES:

R
v
TURNER, Steven Roy
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 264 of 2009
SC No 33 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 June 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of murder and appealed his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory – where the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased – whether it was open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of intentionally killing the deceased

Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Roughan[2009] QCA 21, cited
R v Rice (1996) 85 A Crim R 187; [1996] 2 VR 406, cited
R v Lennox[2007] QCA 383, cited

COUNSEL:

B W Farr SC for the appellant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, for those reasons.

FRASER JA: After an eight day trial in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton, on 21 September 2009 a jury found the appellant guilty of the murder of Nicole Lieske on or about 5 February 2005. The appellant has appealed against the conviction on the ground that the verdict of the jury was “unsafe and unsatisfactory”. That must be taken as invoking the ground in s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) that the verdict was unreasonable. The question is whether it was open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty.[1]
[1] MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 614-615, 624.

The appellant did not contend for any error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury or more generally in his Honour’s careful and detailed summing up. The issues in the appeal, which reflected the real issues fought at trial, were whether the appellant caused the death of the deceased and, if so, whether he did so intending to kill her. The argument that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had killed the deceased was not seriously pressed in the appeal but it was not abandoned. The more substantial…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2010] QCA 156
Case: [2010] QCA 156
Decision Date: 22 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Turner involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of murder by a jury and subsequently appealed the conviction. The nature of the appeal centred on the safety and reasonableness of the jury's verdict, specifically challenging whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased. The case was heard in the appellate court, where the primary focus was on the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had the requisite intent to commit murder. The appellant's argument hinged on the contention that the prosecution had not established the necessary mens rea for murder. The court was required to assess the entirety of the evidence, including witness testimonies, forensic findings, and any other relevant factors, to determine if the jury's verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

In considering the appeal, the court meticulously reviewed the trial proceedings and the evidence presented. It found that the jury had been presented with substantial evidence, including direct testimony from witnesses, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence that pointed to the appellant's intent to kill. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original conviction.

The court's decision was definitive, with the final order being that the appeal was dismissed. This outcome effectively upheld the jury's determination and confirmed the appellant's conviction for the crime of 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

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 Turner [2010] QCA 156
PARTIES:	R v TURNER, Steven Roy (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 264 of 2009 SC No 33 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 June 2010
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Fraser JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of murder and appealed his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory – where the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased – whether it was open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of intentionally killing the deceased Criminal Code1899 (Qld), s 668E(1) MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Roughan[2009] QCA 21, cited R v Rice (1996) 85 A Crim R 187; [1996] 2 VR 406, cited R v Lennox[2007] QCA 383, cited
COUNSEL:	B W Farr SC for the appellant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent