Criminal Law—Evidence—Murder—Circumstantial case against accused—Evidence from which jury might have inferred that accused caused death—No evidence adduced by accused—Direction that inference of guilt more safely drawn from proved facts when accused chooses not to give evidence of facts within his knowledge.
Orders
Appeal dismissed.
Decisions
MASON CJ, DEANE AND DAWSON JJ The appellant was convicted of the murder of Hartwig Bayerl and Susan Zack and of the theft of a vessel, the "Immanuel", which had been owned by Bayerl. Bayerl and Zack had met in Cairns in April 1989 at the Cairns Cruising Yacht Squadron and commenced to live together. The "Immanuel" was a 36-foot cutter upon which Bayerl had spent most of his savings. In the following months Zack spent most of her savings on alterations to the boat. Zack's parents, who lived in England, visited her in Australia in June 1989 and Bayerl asked Zack's father whether he could marry Zack. Her parents urged her to delay the wedding as she had only known Bayerl a few months. She agreed and her parents said that if the couple still wanted to get married after cruising the Pacific together, they would fly out for the wedding.
2. The appellant answered an advertisement by Bayerl for casual labour to work on the boat in August 1989. He agreed to work for no wages and, in return, Zack and Bayerl agreed to take him on their cruise. The accused suggested to the police that there may have been more to this arrangement, but refused to elaborate. The appellant and Bayerl were both Austrian and they soon became friends. The three worked hard on the alterations to the boat, often late into the night.
3. The "Immanuel" was launched at the end of September 1989, but was put back into dry dock because it sprang a leak. It was re-launched a little over two weeks later. Bayerl and Zack wound up their affairs in Cairns late in October 1989. They sold Zack's car. They were keen to set out on their cruise because the Coral Sea is prone to cyclones between November and March. The last known contacts with Bayerl and Zack were in late November. Zack wrote a letter to her sister which was postmarked 22 November 1989. She was over four months pregnant and saw her doctor on 24 November 1989. She said that she would go to a doctor or clinic once a month and hoped to have the baby in hospital, possibly in Cairns. Zack saw a friend in Cairns late in November and said that they were intending to leave that day. She wrote a cheque dated 26 November and used her credit card at the Cairns Liquor Barn on 27 November.
4. Bayerl rang his mother in Austria on 26 November 1989 and said that he was leaving soon.…
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 Weissensteiner v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65
Case
[1993] HCA 65
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr. Weissensteiner, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute concerned the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to support a conviction for murder, particularly in light of the applicant's defence of provocation.
The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favourable to the prosecution, was such that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, must have concluded that the applicant was guilty of murder. This involved a consideration of whether the defence of provocation had been raised by the evidence to such an extent that it was open to the jury to find that the applicant had acted under provocation, thereby reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter.
The Court applied the principle that an appellate court should not disturb a jury's verdict unless it is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. In this instance, the High Court found that there was sufficient evidence before the jury to support a finding of murder, even if there was also evidence that might have supported a finding of provocation. The jury was entitled to reject the defence of provocation and to conclude that the applicant had the necessary intent for murder. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.