Court of Appeal

R v Teichmann [2016] QCA 347 (15/227) Margaret McMurdo P and Douglas and Boddice JJ 23 December 2016

Full-text: QCA16-347.pdf


CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of murder – where the Crown case was that the appellant deliberately discharged a loaded shotgun at the head of the deceased at short range with the intention to kill the deceased or do him grievous bodily harm – where the defence case was that the jury could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt a hypothesis consistent with innocence, namely, that the shotgun discharged in the course of a struggle between the appellant and the deceased after the deceased produced the shotgun and threatened the appellant’s life – where the appellant submits the case against him for murder was purely circumstantial as there was no direct evidence he shot the deceased or, if he did so, he did so intentionally, and no direct evidence of an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm or of any motive for the appellant to kill the deceased – where the appellant submits a consideration of all the evidence was consistent with an accidental killing or killing in self-defence – where the respondent submits the jury were presented with two competing hypotheses, and that there was ample evidence to support the Crown’s hypothesis and to exclude the appellant’s hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt – whether the verdict is unreasonable or insupportable having regard to all the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the trial Judge directed the jury that certain statements by the appellant, if they were satisfied those statements were false, could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt of manslaughter – where the appellant submits these directions led to a miscarriage of justice because the directions given to the jury as to the use that might be made of such evidence were inadequate – where the appellant submits his lies could not be established without proof of his guilt and the directions were therefore unnecessary and carried with them the risk of a wholly circular argument as to the appellant’s guilt – where the appellant submits the jury ought to have been directed they would need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had so lied before using such evidence as consciousness of guilt – where the respondent submits the directions concerning lies were in accordance with the benchbook and did not involve circular reasoning – whether the appellant’s alleged lies were capable of amounting to evidence of consciousness of guilt – whether the jury were properly directed as to the use that could be made of those alleged lies