R v Webb-Italia

Case [2025] QCA 51

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Webb-Italia [2025] QCA 51

PARTIES:

R
v
WEBB-ITALIA, Jye Sebastian
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 109 of 2024
SC No 1657 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 20 May 2024 (Lyons AJ)

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Brown JA and Williams J

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE– MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of murder following trial by jury – where the appellant admitted to stabbing the victim’s abdomen with a knife – where the only issue at trial was whether the Crown had proved that, at the time he stabbed the deceased, the appellant intended to kill the victim, or cause him grievous bodily harm – where it was argued that the Crown could not prove that beyond reasonable doubt, due to the effect of intoxication on the appellant – where the appellant participated in a lengthy police interview, shortly after the stabbing incident, which formed part of the evidence at trial – where the appellant asserted that he suffered from various medical conditions, and was on medication, and claimed that he had “blacked out” during the incident – where it was put to police officers in cross-examination that they had not arranged for the appellant to be drug tested at the time of the interview – where it was submitted in the closing argument by defence counsel at trial that the police could have, but did not, investigate the circumstances of the appellant’s medical conditions, medication and the potential effect of those things on him, including in terms of “blacking out” – where the trial judge, in summing up, directed the jury that they were required to reach their verdict only on the evidence, and were not to speculate about why something did or did not happen – where the trial judge repeated that direction when summarising defence counsel’s argument in this particular respect – whether, as a result of repeating the direction in the context of summarising defence counsel’s argument, the trial judge had undermined defence counsel’s argument or was required to give a “full” Jones v Dunkel direction – whether the failure to give such a direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Dyers v R (2002) 210 CLR 285; [2002] HCA 45, applied
Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1, cited
RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited

COUNSEL:

M L Longhurst for the appellant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

TWC Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. THE COURT:  On the evening of 23 September 2020, the appellant stabbed and killed a young man, Mr…

Continue reading R v Webb-Italia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Webb-Italia [2025] QCA 51
Case
[2025] QCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Webb-Italia involved the appellant, who was convicted of murder following a trial by jury. The appellant admitted to stabbing the victim with a knife, but the central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove that, at the time of the stabbing, the appellant intended to kill the victim or cause him grievous bodily harm. The appellant claimed that his intoxication at the time of the incident affected his ability to form such intent, and he had "blacked out." The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's summing up of the case, particularly regarding the direction to the jury, constituted a misdirection or omission that led to a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's summation of the defence counsel's closing arguments, where the judge emphasised that the jury should not speculate on the absence of certain evidence, amounted to a misdirection or omission that required a more comprehensive direction on the role of the police in investigating the circumstances of the appellant's intoxication and medical conditions. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge should have provided a "full Jones v Dunkel" direction, which would have highlighted the police's duty to objectively investigate all relevant evidence, including evidence that might be exculpatory.

The court concluded that the trial judge's summing up did not constitute a misdirection or omission that led to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury to focus on the evidence presented and not to speculate on the absence of certain evidence was appropriate. The court also determined that there was no necessity for the trial judge to provide a "full Jones v Dunkel" direction, as the trial judge's comments were not an inadequate response to the defence counsel's submissions. The court further noted that the absence of any redirections by counsel at the end of the summing up indicated that no further direction was required.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The particular part of the summing up about which complaint is made on this appeal arose during the trial judge’s summary of the closing arguments of the appellant’s trial counsel. The trial judge referred to counsel’s submissions about the law in relation to intoxication, and his submissions about the appellant’s drug use generally, as well as on the day in question, and then said:“It was part of his evidence [in context, this is a reference to Mr West, a friend of the appellant’s, who was with him on the day of the stabbing] that [the appellant] was heavily intoxicated when he left the unit on the evening on the 23rd of September 2020. Dr Thompson [the forensic pathologist] then provided expert evidence in relation to the effect of each of those drugs on [the appellant] or the possible effect of each of those drugs on [the appellant], and all of the – and what the effect was if you take all of those drugs at the same time. Mr Kimmins [trial counsel for the appellant] also pointed out that [the appellant] was only 18 years old and of slight stature. He also stated it was not challenged by the prosecution that, as at the 23rd of September, [the appellant] was unmedicated for some of his conditions and he was suffering from bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, epilepsy and asthma. He [that is, Mr Kimmins] reminded you that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence as to the effect on the brain and body of the combination of his abuse of prescription drugs together with his medical conditions. As I said to you before, the evidence is the evidence. We – we are not going to speculate on why there was not some particular part of the evidence.So [the appellant] has been in police custody since the 23rd of September, approximately 25 minutes after the incident. He says that the recording of the interviews provides irrefutable proof that he was significantly affected by substances at the time of the interview. …” (AB 183) [emphasis added] No redirections were sought by any counsel at the end of the summing up. It is the addition of the two sentences emphasised in bold in the passage above that is complained of in this appeal. The argument is that by adding those two sentences, in the context of summarising trial counsel’s closing address:(a)the trial judge “cut short”, or diminished, the effect of the defence case; and(b)it became necessary for the trial judge to give a “full Jones v Dunkel” direction. On the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant (who was not his counsel at the trial) said there could be no complaint of any miscarriage of justice if the two impugned sentences had not been included. But, having included those two sentences, he submits it was then incumbent on the trial judge to go on, and give a full Jones v Dunkel type direction, along the following lines:“… As I said to you before, the evidence is the evidence. We – we are not going to speculate on why there was not some particular part of the evidence.However, it is the function of police to investigate alleged offences objectively, and to attempt to collect and assemble all relevant evidence. Police are required to be objective and attempt to uncover all relevant evidence that can be reasonably assembled, whether it is inculpatory or exculpatory.You have heard no explanation for the absence of any evidence concerning the impact of Mr Webb-Italia’s drug use, nor of his asserted mental health diagnoses or assertions of blackouts.As the onus is always on the Crown to prove intent, you may find that you can more readily accept the evidence given by Mr Webb-Italia in his record of interview as it relates to his drug use, medical conditions and assertions of blackouts, as is not contradicted by any further evidence.”

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.