Court of Appeal

Share this

R v Hill; R v Young [2014] QCA 107 (13/0154) Chief Justice and Fraser and Morrison JJA 16/05/2014

Full-text: QCA14-107.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant Young and the appellant Hill were in a relationship – where Hill and the deceased used to be good friends but had fallen out – where Young found out that Hill was sleeping with another woman – where on Friday 8 October 2010 Hill was in Brisbane and Young and the deceased were in Gladstone – where on the evening of Friday 8 October and the morning of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased communicated to Hill via text messages and phone calls that they were sleeping together – where in response Hill made death threats via text messages and phone calls against the deceased – where on Saturday 9 October Hill travelled to Gladstone allegedly acquiring heroin en route – where on Saturday 9 October Young and Hill reconciled – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October Young and the deceased arranged for the former to deliver the latter a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug – where on the evening of Saturday 9 October or the morning of Sunday 10 October Hill arranged for Weston to place an envelope in the deceased’s letterbox – where on Sunday 10 October the deceased injected himself with a syringe containing a pre-mixed drug and died – where medical evidence determined that the deceased died from an overdose of heroin – where there was evidence that the deceased used amphetamines but not heroin – where Hill was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased – where Hill contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where inter alia Hill contends that Hill’s hostility toward the deceased did not continue after he arrived in Gladstone and the deceased injected the drugs on a voluntary and informed basis – whether the verdict against Hill is unreasonable and insupportable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where Young was convicted after trial of the murder of the deceased pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Code – where Young contends that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where Young contends that the lethal dose of heroin did not come from the envelope Hill had placed in the deceased’s letterbox – where Young contends that Hill was not with her for all of her text message communications with the deceased on Saturday 9 October – where Young contends that the deceased did not take Hill’s threats seriously – where Young contends that she did not have actual knowledge that Hill had an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm to the deceased – where Young contends there is insufficient evidence to conclude that she aided Hill to supply heroin to the deceased – whether the verdict against Young is unreasonable and insupportable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where Hill contends that there was a miscarriage of justice in that a contradictory statement by McNeil, relevant to the reliability of that witness as to the deceased’s knowledge of the drug supplied to him, was not before the jury – where that contrary statement was available to Hill’s representatives at trial – where Hill contends that McNeil should have been cross-examined on the disparity of the statements – where Hill applied for leave to adduce that evidence before this Court – whether this resulted in an unfair trial and deprived Hill of a fair chance of acquittal – whether leave to adduce the evidence should be given

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where Hill contends that inadmissible evidence of an accusation that Hill improperly interfered with children, and that Hill was a drug dealer, was before the jury, and the prejudice thereby occasioned could not be cured by direction – where the witness Hardwick gave evidence that the deceased and Young had taunted Hill about “doing things to children” – where the learned trial judge dealt with this evidence in summing up – where a witness referred to Hill as a drug dealer – where Hill and many of the witnesses were at the time of the deceased’s death part of the Gladstone drug scene – whether either reference caused any prejudice to the deceased – whether the reference to Hill “doing things to children” could be cured by directions – whether the jury should have been discharged

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where on Sunday 10 October after learning of the deceased’s death Hill told Watson to “shut your mouth” – where Hill contends there was a miscarriage of justice in that the jury were wrongly directed that post-offence conduct by Hill was capable of amounting to evidence of consciousness of guilt of murder – whether this evidence was capable of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt