Turner v The Queen - [2004] WASCA 127

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: TURNER -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 127

CORAM: MURRAY J
TEMPLEMAN J
WHEELER J

HEARD: 12 MARCH 2004

DELIVERED : 11 JUNE 2004

FILE NO/S: CCA 120 of 2003

BETWEEN: BEVAN TURNER
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram   :ANDERSON J
File Number             :  INS 211 of 2002

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Wilful murder - Intent - Trial Judge's direction as to anger - Effect of anger in the formation of an intent - Inference direction - Intoxication - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for extension of time allowed
Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R W Richardson
Respondent: Ms T D Sweeney & Ms L J Van der Ende

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cutter v The Queen (1997) 143 ALR 498
Dodd v The Queen [1978] WAR 209
Houghton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 20
Parker v The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

Case(s) also cited:

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234
R v Mazzitelli (2002) 135 A Crim R 132
R v Schonewille [1998] 2 VR 625

MURRAY J: I agree with Wheeler J. The orders of the Court should be as her Honour proposes. I have nothing to add.
TEMPLEMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft, the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. I agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by her Honour.
WHEELER J: This is an application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction. The appellant conceded that the explanation for the delay in filing the application did not provide an adequate basis for allowing an extension of time. He therefore sought to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result if an extension of time were not granted. The Court heard the argument in relation to the extension of time and in relation to the appeal together.
On 16 June 2003 the appellant was convicted following a jury trial of one count of wilful murder. The facts, broadly, were as follows. The appellant and the deceased were husband and wife and their relationship had been on foot for 20 years or thereabouts. They had been in Laverton together just before Christmas of 2001, when the deceased left. The appellant had been told that she was seeing another man and he believed this to be true.
The appellant left Laverton and made his way to Kalgoorlie, where he met someone who told him where the deceased could be found. He encountered the deceased in a laneway and began to talk to her. He and the deceased walked to a place called Skinny Park, at…

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 Turner v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Turner v The Queen [2004] WASCA 127
Case: [2004] WASCA 127
Decision Date: 11 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turner v The Queen, the respondent, The Queen, appealed against the conviction of the appellant, Turner, for the wilful murder of a person. Turner was convicted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was whether the trial judge's direction regarding the appellant's anger and its effect on the formation of intent was appropriate and whether the court properly considered the appellant's state of intoxication when assessing intent.

The court examined whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the legal implications of anger in the formation of intent, specifically whether anger could contribute to the formation of intent to kill. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge's instruction on intoxication, which required the jury to consider the effect of intoxication on the appellant's state of mind, was legally sound. The court also reviewed whether the trial judge erred in his inference direction, potentially impacting the jury's understanding of the evidence.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately explain the legal principles concerning the role of anger in the formation of intent, and this misdirection potentially influenced the jury's verdict. The court held that the trial judge's direction on intoxication was also flawed, as it did not correctly align with legal standards. Furthermore, the court determined that the inference direction given was erroneous, affecting the jury's ability to properly weigh the evidence. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Orders