R v Wyborn - [2013] QCA 400

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wyborn [2013] QCA 400

PARTIES:

R
v
WYBORN, Peggy Louise
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 81 of 2013
SC No 820 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of manslaughter – where the appellant applied scalding liquid to the deceased’s face and head, causing burns in those areas and blistering and swelling to his upper airways – where death was caused by deep venous thrombi which developed after a period of immobility and caused a fatal pulmonary embolism – where, at trial, the issue was the role of the burns in the deceased’s death – where two pathologists called for the Crown attributed the thrombosis to the necessary immobilisation of the deceased in the treatment of his burns with infection as a complicating factor – where the pathologist called for the defence posited a theory that a stroke caused by pre-existing conditions independently caused the immobility and resulting thrombosis – whether the jury could have been satisfied that the theory of the defence’s pathologist was not a reasonable possibility – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen the deceased’s death as a possible outcome of her actions – whether the excuse of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code could be excluded – whether it was open to the jury on all the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt of manslaughter

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of manslaughter – where the appellant applied scalding liquid to the deceased’s face and head, causing burns in those areas and blistering and swelling to his upper airways – where the trial judge, in relation to the excuse of accident, directed the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen death as a possible outcome of applying scalding liquid to the deceased’s face – where the appellant contended that the trial judge should have adverted to the particular sequence of events which led to the death – where the appellant contended that the trial judge should have instructed the jury that foreseeability that the injury was life-threatening would not suffice – whether any miscarriage of justice was demonstrated

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(b), s 293, s 602

Fingleton v The Queen (2005)…

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 Wyborn

Details

AGLC: R v Wyborn [2013] QCA 400
Case: [2013] QCA 400
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wyborn, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter following an incident where she applied scalding liquid to the face and head of the deceased, resulting in severe burns and subsequent complications leading to the deceased's death. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions caused the death and whether the defence theory that pre-existing conditions led to the deceased's immobility and thrombosis was a reasonable possibility. The court also considered whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the foreseeability of the death as a result of the appellant's actions.

The court examined whether the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the burns caused the necessary immobility and subsequent thrombosis, leading to the deceased's death. The Crown's pathologists testified that the burns and the necessary immobilisation due to infection contributed to the thrombosis, while the defence's pathologist suggested that a stroke caused by pre-existing conditions led to the immobility. The court found that the jury was entitled to reject the defence's theory as not a reasonable possibility, given the evidence presented. The court further held that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the foreseeability of death was sufficient, and the appellant's contention that the trial judge should have specified the sequence of events leading to the death was not persuasive.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsupportable in light of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions caused the deceased's death and that the excuse of accident could be excluded. The reasoning and evidence supported the jury's conclusion, and no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

The court did not find any error in the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the appeal was dismissed. The conviction for manslaughter was upheld, and the appellant's challenge to the verdict was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 Wyborn [2013] QCA 400
PARTIES:	R v WYBORN, Peggy Louise (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 81 of 2013 SC No 820 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	20 December 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of manslaughter – where the appellant applied scalding liquid to the deceased’s face and head, causing burns in those areas and blistering and swelling to his upper airways – where death was caused by deep venous thrombi which developed after a period of immobility and caused a fatal pulmonary embolism – where, at trial, the issue was the role of the burns in the deceased’s death – where two pathologists called for the Crown attributed the thrombosis to the necessary immobilisation of the deceased in the treatment of his burns with infection as a complicating factor – where the pathologist called for the defence posited a theory that a stroke caused by pre-existing conditions independently caused the immobility and resulting thrombosis – whether the jury could have been satisfied that the theory of the defence’s pathologist was not a reasonable possibility – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen the deceased’s death as a possible outcome of her actions – whether the excuse of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code could be excluded – whether it was open to the jury on all the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt of manslaughter CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of manslaughter – where the appellant applied scalding liquid to the deceased’s face and head, causing burns in those areas and blistering and swelling to his upper airways – where the trial judge, in relation to the excuse of accident, directed the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen death as a possible outcome of applying scalding liquid to the deceased’s face – where the appellant contended that the trial judge should have adverted to the particular sequence of events which led to the death – where the appellant contended that the trial judge should have instructed the jury that foreseeability that the injury was life-threatening would not suffice – whether any miscarriage of justice was demonstrated Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(b), s 293, s 602 Fingleton v The Queen (2005)…