R v Woods - [2003] QCA 352

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Woods [2003] QCA 352
PARTIES: R
v
WOODS, Paul James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 155 of 2003 SC No 497 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 12 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 12 August 2003
JUDGES: Williams and Jerrard JJA and Muir 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of attempted murder among other offences – where appellant was a passenger in a stolen vehicle being pursued by police – where appellant fired shotgun at police car and injured driver – where no positive evidence given at trial of any intent other than to kill – whether it was open to a reasonable jury to exclude all other hypotheses – whether jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the intention to kill the police officer

R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA No 21 of 2002, CA No 122 of 2002, CA No 26 of 2002 and CA No 115 of 2002, 6 September 2002, followed
COUNSEL: K M McGinness for the appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

WILLIAMS JA: As a result of events which occurred on or about
6 July 2001 the appellant was charged with a number of
offences. He pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful use of a
motor vehicle, a charge of burglary with circumstances of

aggravation being armed and with threats of violence, to one	10
count of robbery whilst armed in company and another count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
He pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempted murder but
guilty to the alternative count of unlawfully striking with	20
intent. The prosecution did not accept that plea and the matter proceeded to trial on the charge of attempted murder with the alternative count being available to the jury.
The relevant facts were not significantly in dispute.	30
The appellant and a co-offender entered premises in Hale
Street, Paddington armed with a shotgun and other weapons and,
as a result of those actions, drove off in a black Porsche.
It is of some significance to note that the Porsche was a	40
left-hand drive vehicle. That meant that the appellant was seated in the passenger seat on the right-hand side of that vehicle.
Police were notified of the events which had occurred at Hale	50
Street and were on the lookout for the black Porsche. It was
noticed in the Mitchelton area and thereafter a police pursuit ensued through the suburbs of Mitchelton and Ferny…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: R v Woods [2003] QCA 352
Case: [2003] QCA 352
Decision Date: 12/08/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the appeal by Woods against the conviction for attempted murder, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable. Woods, a passenger in a stolen car being pursued by police, fired a shotgun at a police vehicle, injuring the driver. The jury found Woods guilty of attempted murder, among other offences. The appeal centred on the contention that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, particularly in light of the lack of evidence suggesting an intent other than to kill. The central legal issue was whether it was open to a reasonable jury, properly directed, to exclude all other hypotheses and to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Woods had the intention to kill the police officer.

The court examined the evidence and the jury's verdict in the context of the principles governing appeals against convictions on the grounds of unreasonableness or insupportability. The court considered the appellant's argument that the jury should have been directed to consider whether there was any reasonable hypothesis other than that the appellant intended to kill. However, the court held that the evidence did not compel such a direction. The court found that it was open to a reasonable jury, properly directed, to conclude that the appellant intended to kill the police officer, given the nature of the attack and the absence of any other plausible explanation for the shooting. The jury was properly directed on the need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's intention, and the evidence supported their conclusion.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The reasoning was that the jury's verdict was open to them based on the evidence presented and the proper direction given. The court found no basis to conclude that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction 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 Woods [2003] QCA 352
PARTIES:	R v WOODS, Paul James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 155 of 2003 SC No 497 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	12 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 August 2003
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Muir 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of attempted murder among other offences – where appellant was a passenger in a stolen vehicle being pursued by police – where appellant fired shotgun at police car and injured driver – where no positive evidence given at trial of any intent other than to kill – whether it was open to a reasonable jury to exclude all other hypotheses – whether jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the intention to kill the police officer
R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346; CA No 21 of 2002, CA No 122 of 2002, CA No 26 of 2002 and CA No 115 of 2002, 6 September 2002, followed
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the appellant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent