McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Cullinane JJudgment of the Court.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – MENS REA
– ANCILLARY LIABILITY AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR
PROCURING –
where the appellant mother and step father were convicted of the murder of their
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – MENS REA– ANCILLARY LIABILITY AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING ORPROCURING –where the appellant mother and step father were convicted of the murder of theirfour year old daughter –where the child’s death was caused by fatalhead injuries consistent with repeated blows to the head – whether eachappellanthad individually or in combination killed the deceased with therequisite intention – or if each appellant had knowledge oftheother’s requisite intentCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIALAND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPERADMISSION OR REJECTIONOF EVIDENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION– where each appellant lied about how the child received the fatalinjuries– circumstances in which such evidence may be led - Edwardsdirection not necessary but where a direction should have been given againstthe danger of concluding that a person must be guilty
because they have told
lies – Richens, Zoneff and Broadhurst
consideredCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER
CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION
OF
EVIDENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – evidence of uncharged
acts of violence towards the child by both appellants
rightly admitted as
relationship evidence and as relevant to issue of intent – where in
particular in an emotive case the jury
ought to have been warned against
possible misuse of such evidenceCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –
MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION
– PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE –
where the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case – where it
was
necessary to distinguish between evidence of callousness and specific intent
to cause grievous bodily harmBroadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC
441, consideredEdwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
(1992) 178 CLR 193,
distinguishedHoch v The Queen [1988] HCA 50
(1988) 165 CLR 292,
distinguishedKRM v The Queen [2001] HCA 11
(2001) 75 ALJR 550,
consideredLowrie & Ross (1999) 106 A Crim R, considered
Pfennig v The Queen [1995] HCA 7
(1995) 182 CLR 461, distinguishedR v
Brennan [1999] 2 Qd R 529, consideredR v Callaghan [1993] QCA 419
[1994] 2 Qd R
300, consideredR v Cox [1986] 2 Qd R 55, consideredR v Lock
[2001] QCA 84, CA No 151 of 2000, 13 March 2001, consideredR v Lowrie
& Ross [2000] QCA 405
CA Nos 95 and 92 of 2000, 3 October 2000,
consideredR v Mogg [2000] QCA 244, CA No 317 of 1999, 20 June 2000,
consideredR v O’Keefe [1999] QCA 50
[2000] 1 Qd R 564, consideredR v
Self [2001] QCA 338, CA No 77 of 2001, 24 August, consideredRichens
[1992] EWCA Crim 3
(1994) 98 Cr. App. R, 43, followedRPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3
(2000) 74 ALJR
449, appliedZoneff (2000) 112 A Crim R 114, considered
Judgment (20 paragraphs)
[1]
CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - MENS REA - ANCILLARY LIABILITY AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR PROCURING - where the appellant mother and step father were convicted of the murder of their four year old daughter - where the child's death was caused by fatal head injuries consistent with repeated blows to the head - whether each appellant had individually or in combination killed the deceased with the requisite intention - or if each appellant had knowledge of the other's requisite intent
[2]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION - where each appellant lied about how the child received the fatal injuries - circumstances in which such evidence may be led - Edwards direction not necessary but where a direction should have been given against the danger of concluding that a person must be guilty because they have told lies - Richens, Zoneff and Broadhurst considered
[3]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION - evidence of uncharged acts of violence towards the child by both appellants rightly admitted as relationship evidence and as relevant to issue of intent - where in particular in an emotive case the jury ought to have been warned against possible misuse of such evidence
[4]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE - where the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case - where it was necessary to distinguish between evidence of callousness and specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm