R v Quagliata

[2019] QCA 45

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Particular Grounds of Appeal
4. › Misdirection and Non-direction
5. › Review of Evidence
6. › Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury as to evidence relevant to each alternative basis of criminal responsibility
7. › Whether failure to distinguish between alternative cases deprived appellant of chance of acquittal
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Particular Grounds of Appeal
4. › Misdirection and Non-direction
5. › Joint criminal enterprise and common unlawful purpose
6. › Whether trial judge erred in directing jury that expressions were interchangeable
7. › Whether direction invited conviction otherwise than by reference to s 7 Criminal Code
8. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 7
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Proviso
4. › Whether Crown demonstrated error did not result in substantial miscarriage of justice
5. › Whether fundamental irregularities precluded application of proviso
6. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 668F
1. Criminal Law
2. › Parties to Offences
3. › Criminal responsibility under Criminal Code
4. › Distinction between principal offender and party
5. › Whether 'common unlawful purpose' is itself a basis for attribution of criminal responsibility
6. › Criminal Code (Qld), ss 7, 8

Quick Take

Where the Crown advances alternative bases of criminal responsibility under s 7 of the Criminal Code (Qld), the trial judge must direct the jury to separately consider each alternative, identify the evidence admissible on each, and explain how the evidence relates to establishing criminal responsibility under s 7. Directing the jury that 'common unlawful purpose' or 'joint criminal enterprise' provides a means of attaching criminal responsibility is erroneous unless the direction, taken as a whole, confines the jury to the bases of liability in s 7. The proviso will not save a conviction where fundamental irregularities pervade the particulars, evidence, and directions, and the Crown has not demonstrated by careful examination of the admissible evidence that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt on each alternative.