Stone v The Queen

Stone appealed against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his partner by burning. The jury had convicted him of murder, and the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The appeal against conviction argued that the jury's verdict was not reasonably open to them, and that it was improper for the judge to find that certain statements made by Stone were lies. The appeal against sentence argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had given excessive weight to the method of murder as an aggravating factor.

The court considered the appeal against conviction, focusing on whether the jury's verdict was reasonably open to them, and whether it was open to the judge to find that certain statements were lies. The court found that the jury's verdict was reasonably open to them, and that it was open to the judge to find that certain statements were lies. However, the court found that the judge had erred in characterising certain lies as incriminating conduct, and that this involved bootstraps reasoning. The court also considered the prosecution's duty of disclosure, and found that the prosecution had not breached this duty.

The court considered the appeal against sentence, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the objective gravity and moral culpability of the offending, and had not given excessive weight to the method of murder as an aggravating factor. The court found that the sentence was appropriate, and that there were no mitigating factors, no evidence of remorse, and no psychological explanation for the offending. The court found that a strong condemnation was required for domestic murder, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court refused both the application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence.