Stapleton v The Queen

Case [2002] WASCA 328

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:   STAPLETON -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 328

CORAM:   MURRAY J

STEYTLER J
FITZGERALD AJ

HEARD:   7 AUGUST 2002

DELIVERED          :   4 DECEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S:   CCA 87 of 2001

CCA 88 of 2001

BETWEEN:   JAMES WAYNE STAPLETON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Wilful murder of child - Death caused by a severe beating, asphyxiation or both - Whether trial Judge erred in admitting evidence of confessional statements by appellant which were not recorded on videotape - Adequacy of direction in respect of statements by co­accused persons in evidence tending to implicate appellant - Conviction upheld

Sentencing - Wilful murder - Choice between life imprisonment and strict security life imprisonment - Fixing minimum period before eligibility for parole - Principles discussed

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 282, s 570D

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 90, s 91

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Category:    A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr M J McCusker QC & Mr M G Devlin

Respondent:     Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Young & Young

Respondent:     State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ahmad v The Queen [2002] WASCA 70

Jackson v The Queen [1990] WAR 105

Jacovic v The Queen [2002] WASCA 149

Lauritsen v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 442

McKinney & Judge v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468

Monaghan v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 466

Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623

R v Sherratt (2000) 112 A Crim R 177

R v Suarez‑Mejia [2002] WASCA 187

T (a child) v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 130

Wood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 175

Case(s) also cited:

Deakin v The Queen (1984) 54 ALR 765

Griffin v The Queen [2001] WASCA 11

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665

Middleton v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 179

R v "H" (a child), unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980547; 14 September 1998

R v Georgiadis (No 3) [2001] TASSC 49

R v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159

  1. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:  The appellant has appealed against his conviction for the wilful murder of a teenage boy on 11 May 1999.  The appellant undoubtedly participated in the events that led to the boy's death and subsequently buried his body.  He admitted that in evidence he gave at his trial.  However, he denied that he intended to kill the boy or cause him grievous bodily harm and claimed that his acts were not of such a nature as to be likely to endanger the boy's life.  On the appellant's case, one or more of his companions must have killed the boy.

  2. In his evidence, the appellant admitted that he and his companions held the boy in captivity for a considerable period, during which he was tied up, beaten with a substantial piece of wood and a shovel and the appellant jumped…

Continue reading Stapleton v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stapleton v The Queen [2002] WASCA 328
Case
[2002] WASCA 328
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against his conviction for the wilful murder of a teenage boy on 11 May 1999 was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant participated in the events that led to the boy's death, including holding the boy in captivity, beating him, and burying his body. The appellant denied that he intended to kill the boy or cause him grievous bodily harm and claimed that his acts were not of such a nature as to be likely to endanger the boy's life. The prosecution argued that the boy was killed by acts of the appellant, either the blows he inflicted, the tying of the ligatures, the insertion of paper down his throat, or forcing the piece of wood across his throat. The appellant submitted that the trial Judge should not have admitted evidence of oral admissions allegedly made to a police officer and that his Honour erred in his summing up to the jury in relation to evidence given by his co-accused.

The court examined whether the trial Judge erred in admitting evidence of confessional statements by the appellant which were not recorded on videotape and whether the direction given to the jury in respect of statements by co-accused persons in evidence tending to implicate the appellant was adequate. The Crown conceded that evidence of oral admissions allegedly made by the appellant to Detective Senior Constable Scantlebury formed an important part of its case. The court considered the circumstances of the appellant's admissions and whether they were voluntary and reliable. The court also considered the adequacy of the trial Judge's direction to the jury in respect of statements by co-accused persons in evidence tending to implicate the appellant. The court concluded that the trial Judge did not err in admitting the evidence and that his direction to the jury was adequate.

The court upheld the conviction for the wilful murder of the teenage boy. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant was guilty of the wilful murder of the boy. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the trial Judge erred in admitting evidence of oral admissions allegedly made to a police officer and that his Honour erred in his summing up to the jury in respect of statements by co-accused persons in evidence tending to implicate the appellant. The court also considered the sentencing of the appellant and fixed a minimum period before eligibility for parole. The court concluded that the appellant should be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court rejected the argument that the appellant should be sentenced to strict security life imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

STEYTLER J
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The appellant has appealed against his conviction for the wilful murder of a teenage boy on 11 May 1999. The appellant undoubtedly participated in the events that led to the boy's death and subsequently buried his body. He admitted that in evidence he gave at his trial. However, he denied that he intended to kill the boy or cause him grievous bodily harm and claimed that his acts were not of such a nature as to be likely to endanger the boy's life. On the appellant's case, one or more of his companions must have killed the boy. In his evidence, the appellant admitted that he and his companions held the boy in captivity for a considerable period, during which he was tied up, beaten with a substantial piece of wood and a shovel and the appellant jumped on his torso. The appellant was absent for at most 20 minutes when he drove to a service station for fuel. When he returned, he tied ligatures around the boy's face and head, stuffed toilet paper down his throat and used a piece of wood across his throat to stop him breathing, if he was alive. The appellant said that he thought the boy was dead, but wanted to stop him suffering if he was alive. The prosecution was unable to exclude the possibility that the boy was already dead when the appellant admittedly set out to kill him, if he was still alive. It did not argue that the appellant was guilty even if the boy's death was caused by a blow inflicted by one of the appellant's companions while he was absent. It set out to prove that the boy was killed by acts of the appellant, either the blows he inflicted, the tying of the ligatures, the insertion of paper down his throat, or forcing the piece of wood across his throat. The pathologist, Dr Margolius, gave as her opinion that the boy could have been killed by multiple soft tissue injuries, upper airway ligature obstruction or a combination of both. The Crown conceded that evidence of oral admissions allegedly made by the appellant to Detective Senior Constable Scantlebury, a police officer involved in the investigation of the crime, formed an important part of its case. The appellant submitted that the trial Judge should not have admitted that evidence. He also submitted that his Honour erred in his summing up to the jury in relation to evidence given by his co‑accused. On 21 May 1999, the appellant was interviewed by Scantlebury and another detective, McKenzie, at the Bunbury Police Station. The interview was recorded on videotape. The appellant admitted abducting and striking the boy, but claimed that the boy later left on his bicycle. The appellant was again interviewed on the following day by McKenzie and another detective, Bradley. The appellant's partner, Derrin Elizabeth Bardsley, who was also involved in the offence, was interviewed by Scantlebury and another detective. Scantlebury subsequently approached the appellant and, in answer to his questions, told him that Bardsley had made admissions and encouraged him to reveal the location of the boy's body. The appellant became upset, asked to speak to Bardsley and was permitted to do so. He then asked to speak with a lawyer and Scantlebury arranged for Mr Devlin to attend. After the appellant had a conversation with Mr Devlin, the detectives were informed that the appellant would assist them to locate the boy's body but would not participate in any further interviews. Although the statement might have referred to videotaped interviews, it is plain that the appellant declined to be interviewed further.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STEYTLER J

Full text does not contain this section.