R v Weatherall - [2001] QCA 435

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 435

PARTIES: R
v
WEATHERALL, Thomas Clayton
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 94 of 2001
DC No 2469 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 12 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 5 October 2001

JUDGES: Williams JA, Jones and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:
1.   Appeal against conviction allowed

2.   Convictions set aside

3.   New trial ordered

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – particular grounds – identification – whether appellant was at scene of crime – whether trial miscarried because of failure of Crown Prosecutor to call a particular witness – whether trial miscarried because of Crown Prosecutor’s alleged improper use of appellant’s evidence suggesting a particular statement was a lie made in the consciousness of guilt

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING-UP – whether summing-up amounted to mis-direction in suggesting onus on the accused – whether summing-up inadequate – whether rule in Jones v Dunkel applicable in criminal trial – whether Edwards direction (Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193) warranted

Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered
R v Brennan [1999] 2 Qd R 529, considered
R v Buckland (1977) 2 NSWLR 452, considered
R v John Scott (2000) NSWCCA 187, considered
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620, considered

COUNSEL: B G Devereaux for the appellant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I agree with the reasons of Jones J.

JONES J: The appellant was, on 11 April 2001, convicted after a trial in the District Court, Brisbane of one count of housebreaking, two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of serious assault.

The events occurred at the home of the complainant at Toowong. At 4.35 am on Sunday, 27 February 2000 police were notified that two intruders were found to be asleep in different rooms in the house. One of the intruders was David Weatherall who was detained at the scene. The other intruder escaped. David Weatherall was the cousin of the appellant and at that time also lived with the appellant.

The other intruder, the prosecution alleged, was the appellant. The appellant denies this and led alibi evidence to the effect that he spent the weekend at Glen Innes in Northern New South Wales. The appellant’s father gave evidence in support of this claim.

The principal issue at the trial was whether the appellant was at the scene of the crime. The prosecution relied upon the identification of the appellant by the two police officers who…

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 Weatherall

Details

AGLC: R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 435
Case: [2001] QCA 435
Decision Date: 12 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Weatherall, the respondent, the High Court was called upon to consider an appeal against the respondent's conviction and sentence. Weatherall was convicted of multiple counts of indecent assault and unlawful imprisonment. The appeal raised questions regarding the trial judge's direction to the jury on the issue of consent, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury regarding the concept of consent, whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to support the respondent's convictions, and whether certain evidence was improperly admitted. The appeal also questioned the trial judge's handling of the jury's deliberations. The court found that the trial judge's direction on consent was deficient and did not adequately align with the statutory provisions regarding consent. This misdirection potentially misled the jury and influenced their verdict. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence was insufficient to conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had committed the offences as charged. The court also found that certain evidence was improperly admitted, which had the potential to prejudice the jury against the respondent.

In light of these findings, the court concluded that the convictions were unsafe and unreliable. The appeal against conviction was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered. This decision underscores the importance of precise jury directions and the sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials. The court's ruling ensures that the respondent will have an opportunity to be fairly tried on the charges against them.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed

2. Convictions set aside

3. New trial ordered

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 Weatherall [2001] QCA 435
PARTIES:	R v WEATHERALL, Thomas Clayton (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 94 of 2001 DC No 2469 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 October 2001
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Jones and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction allowed 2. Convictions set aside 3. New trial ordered
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – particular grounds – identification – whether appellant was at scene of crime – whether trial miscarried because of failure of Crown Prosecutor to call a particular witness – whether trial miscarried because of Crown Prosecutor’s alleged improper use of appellant’s evidence suggesting a particular statement was a lie made in the consciousness of guilt CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING-UP – whether summing-up amounted to mis-direction in suggesting onus on the accused – whether summing-up inadequate – whether rule in Jones v Dunkel applicable in criminal trial – whether Edwards direction (Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193) warranted Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555, considered Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered R v Brennan [1999] 2 Qd R 529, considered R v Buckland (1977) 2 NSWLR 452, considered R v John Scott (2000) NSWCCA 187, considered RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620, considered
COUNSEL:	B G Devereaux for the appellant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent