Court of Appeal

R v Hunt [2017] QCA 052 ; [2017] 14 QLR (14/332) Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J 31 March 2017

Full-text: QCA17-052.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant and the deceased had previously been in a consensual BDSM sexual relationship – where the appellant and the deceased had increasingly acrimonious arguments about sexual images of the deceased appearing online and money said to be owed to the appellant – where the deceased had previously been rescued by police from a non-consensual violent assault by the appellant but had declined to make a criminal complaint – where the appellant contended that the deceased had connections to various organised crime groups, had previously told him of details of multiple murders she had committed and was a heavy user of the drugs ice and cannabis – where that evidence was disputed by members of the deceased’s family – where the appellant contended that he had invited the deceased into his home and she set upon him in his house and that he had killed her in self-defence – where the deceased had 68 injuries inflicted upon her, some by a metal bar, and there were few injuries to the appellant – where most of the matters relied upon by the appellant to ground his fear of the deceased had been known to him for a long period of time prior to the killing – where the appellant had attempted to dispose of the deceased’s body and her phone – whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – HOMICIDE – DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE – where the appellant contended that he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s ready acceptance of his invitation to come to his house – where, upon the appellant’s evidence, the deceased set upon him inside his house and he managed to escape the building, down the external stairs and onto the front lawn – where the appellant contended he was in fear of his life from the deceased’s attack upon him and the prospect of assistance by her associates, none of whom were present during the attack – where the purpose of the appellant’s use of force was to defend himself, rather than to prevent the deceased from entering or re-entering his house to commit an indictable offence within the house – whether there was a miscarriage of justice because the jury was not instructed to consider defence of dwelling under s 267 Criminal Code (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – FRESH EVIDENCE – where the appellant’s phone record proved that he made an 11 minute call to the Cleveland Police Station 10 days before the killing but the station had no record of the call – where the appellant claimed he had told police during the call that he feared for his life – where the appellant claimed to have referred to the call in the police record of interview but that was not borne out by the transcript – where the appellant, at trial, had conceded that if the call was not mentioned in the transcript, he probably did not tell the police about it – where, on appeal, the appellant was adamant that he must have referred to the call in the interview and that the police must have doctored or edited the transcript – whether the evidence was fresh evidence or new or further evidence – whether the addition of the new or further evidence would make the verdict an unreasonable one

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – FRESH EVIDENCE – where the appellant tendered an affidavit of his son which sought to corroborate the appellant’s claims of his fear of the deceased – where the appellant claimed that the evidence was not available at trial because his son was underage and his mother would not permit him to give evidence – where the evidence was new or further evidence not fresh evidence because it was not evidence of which the appellant was unaware at the time of his trial or which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence – where the affidavit evidence was inconsistent in several respects with the evidence of the appellant at trial – whether the addition of the new or further evidence would make the verdict an unreasonable one