Scott Alexander McDougall v The Queen

Scott Alexander McDougall appealed against his conviction for murder by a single judge of the ACT Supreme Court. The appeal concerned the trial judge's findings regarding the acts causing the death of Struan Bolas, specifically whether those acts were committed in self-defence, and the judge's consideration of the pathologist's evidence on the cause of death. A further ground of appeal related to the trial judge's alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations, including the appellant's intoxication, his knowledge of the deceased's violent tendencies, and the deceased's possession of weapons. Finally, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, contrary to s 68C(2) of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding, beyond reasonable doubt, that the acts causing the death of Struan Bolas were not committed in self-defence. This involved assessing whether the appellant's actions after the killing constituted a substantial or significant contribution to the death, as per the principles in *Royall v The Queen*. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge correctly addressed the pathologist's evidence concerning the cause of death. Furthermore, the appeal required the court to examine whether the trial judge failed to acknowledge or correctly utilise information regarding the appellant's intoxication, his awareness of the deceased's propensity for violence, and the presence of weapons, and whether this information was appropriately considered as background and relevant to the appellant's state of mind. Lastly, the court had to determine if the trial judge's reasons for judgment were adequate, specifically concerning findings of fact, the application of the law, and the subjective elements of the self-defence test.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's determination that the acts causing death were not in self-defence, holding that the judge was entitled on the evidence to reach this conclusion. The court also found that the trial judge correctly considered the pathologist's evidence and that the appellant's actions after the killing were a substantial and significant contribution to the death. Regarding the alleged failure to consider relevant factors, the court held that the trial judge did not fail to acknowledge intoxication, knowledge of the deceased's violent tendencies, or the deceased's possession of weapons, and that this information was correctly used as background and to assess the appellant's state of mind. The court further determined that the trial judge was entitled to give considerable weight to the appellant's post-offence conduct in assessing the impact of intoxication on his cognitive faculties. Finally, the court concluded that the trial judge provided adequate reasons for the decision, demonstrating a clear rejection of the appellant's account based on the evidence of other witnesses, and was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence regarding the circumstances of the death. Consequently, the appeals against conviction and sentence for the murder of Struan Bolas, and the appeal against sentence for the murder of Julie Tattersall, were dismissed.