R v Weston - [2009] QCA 331

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Weston [2009] QCA 331

PARTIES:

R
v
WESTON, Radan Noel
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 100 of 2009
SC No 97 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and A Lyons 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 appellant admitted unlawfully killing deceased – where issue at trial whether appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to deceased – where evidence that appellant departed place of killing and manner of that departure admitted – whether evidence properly admitted

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39, cited
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited

COUNSEL:

J R Baulch SC for the appellant (pro bono)
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: On 21 April 2009 the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with 54 days pre-trial custody being declared to be time served under his sentence.

At the commencement of the trial, the appellant acknowledged that he had unlawfully killed Jessica Janet Turner ("the deceased"). Accordingly, the only issue in the trial was whether the appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

The appellant seeks to challenge his conviction on a number of grounds. While the grounds on which principal reliance is placed concern what are said to be irregularities in the conduct of the trial, one ground raises an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence on which the appellant was convicted. Accordingly, it will be convenient to discuss the appellant's arguments in this Court after first summarising the cases advanced at trial for the prosecution and defence respectively.

The case at trial

On 31 December 2007 the appellant and the deceased were attending a new year's party at the home of the appellant's brother, Grant Weston. The appellant was then 30 years old. He and the deceased had formerly been in a relationship, but the deceased had a new boyfriend. The appellant began drinking alcohol at 1.30 or

2.00 pm. He received a telephone call and left the premises for some time, returning at about 9.00 pm.

At the time when the deceased was stabbed by the appellant, there were three other people present: Grant…

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 Weston

Details

AGLC: R v Weston [2009] QCA 331
Case: [2009] QCA 331
Decision Date: 30 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this matter, Weston, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the unlawful killing of another person. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence during the trial that may have influenced the jury's decision. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge should not have allowed evidence of his departure from the scene of the killing, as it was not relevant to the issue of whether the appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

The Court considered the nature of the evidence in question and whether it was properly admitted. The Court found that the evidence of the appellant's departure from the scene of the killing was relevant to the issue of intent, as it demonstrated the appellant's state of mind following the killing. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting this evidence, and that it was properly considered by the jury in reaching their verdict. The Court further found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial judge did not err in admitting any evidence that was relevant to the issues before the jury. The Court also noted that the appellant's admissions during the trial, including his admission that he unlawfully killed the deceased, were significant in reaching the verdict. The Court found that the appellant's appeal was without merit, and that the conviction and sentence should be upheld.

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 Weston [2009] QCA 331
PARTIES:	R v WESTON, Radan Noel (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 100 of 2009 SC No 97 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	30 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Holmes JJA and A Lyons 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 appellant admitted unlawfully killing deceased – where issue at trial whether appellant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to deceased – where evidence that appellant departed place of killing and manner of that departure admitted – whether evidence properly admitted MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39, cited Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited
COUNSEL:	J R Baulch SC for the appellant (pro bono) M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent