R v Vidler - [2000] QCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Vidler [2000] QCA 63

PARTIES: R
v
VIDLER, Bradley Milton Craig
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 356 of 1999
SC No 464 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 10 March 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 25 February 2000

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Pincus and Thomas JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – PROVOCATION – OBJECTIVE TEST – whether misdirection with respect to provocation – whether use of the term “reasonable” rendered direction erroneous

CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE – GENERALLY – whether misdirection with respect to self-defence – whether test as stated included “reasonable person” element – whether test as stated offended principle in Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589 – whether Gray should be reconsidered

JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING UP

Criminal Code (Qld), s 271(2)

Julian (1998) 100 A Crim R 430, considered
Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, considered and applied
Mascianto (1994-1995) 183 CLR 58, considered
Stingel (1990) 171 CLR 312, considered

COUNSEL: Mr A J Rafter for the appellant
Mr R Martin for the respondent

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

THE COURT: This is an appeal against a conviction of murder.

The appellant late on the afternoon of 2 May 1998 shot the deceased (Edwards) by discharging a .22 rifle. Differing accounts were given as to the circumstances of the shooting and of the antecedent events.

The events took place in and around Daintree. There was evidence that the appellant in the early hours of 2 May came to Edwards' house where he abused and threatened his girlfriend Dianne who was staying there following some unpleasantness elsewhere the previous night. There was evidence of resentment on the appellant's part against Edwards because he suspected him of having a sexual relationship with Dianne. The appellant left after behaving in a generally violent and disorderly manner but returned and slept in his car nearby until daybreak.

The following day at the house of a man named Parker the appellant made aggressive statements to Dianne including "I want you out of town tonight". The evidence shows that by this time there were two identifiable "camps" or groups, one of them supportive of Dianne and the other supportive of the appellant. The appellant's supporters included persons named Veress and Cooke. The other group included Edwards, Parker and Wilson. The appellant made threats that if Dianne was not out of town by 6.00 pm that night she'd be dead and so would anyone else that helped her. Earlier the appellant…

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 Vidler

Details

AGLC: R v Vidler [2000] QCA 63
Case: [2000] QCA 63
Decision Date: 10 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vidler involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, challenging the decisions made during the trial. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury concerning the defences of provocation and self-defence, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the trial judge's use of the term "reasonable" in relation to these defences misdirected the jury, thereby affecting the fairness of the trial.

The court examined whether the trial judge's directions regarding provocation and self-defence contained an erroneous element by incorporating a "reasonable person" standard. This raised questions about whether such a standard was applicable and whether it aligned with the established legal principles. The court also considered if the case of Gray should be revisited to clarify the appropriate test for these defences. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of these defences and whether any misdirections made by the trial judge warranted a new trial or an appeal against conviction.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the trial judge's directions, while perhaps not perfectly phrased, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the judge's overall instructions to the jury were sufficient to ensure that the defences were properly considered, and any potential misdirection did not prejudice the appellant's case. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions, when viewed as a whole, did not contain any fundamental errors that would warrant a new trial or an appeal against conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood affirmed. The court found that the trial judge's directions, although not ideal, did not constitute a miscarriage of justice and did not misdirect the jury to the extent that it necessitated overturning the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Vidler [2000] QCA 63
PARTIES:	R v VIDLER, Bradley Milton Craig (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 356 of 1999 SC No 464 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 February 2000
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Pincus and Thomas JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – PROVOCATION – OBJECTIVE TEST – whether misdirection with respect to provocation – whether use of the term “reasonable” rendered direction erroneous CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE – GENERALLY – whether misdirection with respect to self-defence – whether test as stated included “reasonable person” element – whether test as stated offended principle in Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589 – whether Gray should be reconsidered JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING UP Criminal Code (Qld), s 271(2) Julian (1998) 100 A Crim R 430, considered Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, considered and applied Mascianto (1994-1995) 183 CLR 58, considered Stingel (1990) 171 CLR 312, considered
COUNSEL:	Mr A J Rafter for the appellant Mr R Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent