Plomp v The Queen PDF

Preview

Summary

Plomp v The Queen...

Description

Plomp v The Queen Prior to attending this tutorial you need to: 1. Read Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234 – this case will be relevant to a number of areas of the unit. Find the CLR version of this case using Westlaw (Australia) Cases through the library webpage. 1. Watch the screen cast ‘Circumstantial Evidence and the High Court: Plomp v The Queen’. It will provide context and some additional information to assist your understanding of the case. This video can be found on the Blackboard site. 1. Take some notes as you read Plomp v R and bring these with you to this week’s tutorial. Here are some guide questions for you to think about while studying the case: 

What were the facts which led to Mr Plomp being charged?

Circumstantial evidence as to how his wife died. She drowned at sea. He was the only witness there and it was known his wife was a good swimmer and the water WAS NOT ROUGH. 630 ish Feb 24, a good swimmer should not have died at that time in those circumstances. Therefore, judge and jury believed it was Plomp who murdered her. 

How did this matter progress to the High Court? What was the nature of the proceedings before the HCA?

Here, the accused was convicted in a trial in the supreme court of Queensland. He appealed the conviction to the court of appeal. The accused applied for special leave to the high court. The report is of the special leave from the high court. 

What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence?

Direct evidence - evidence that if accepted establishes the material fact in dispute. It is contrasted with circumstantial evidence which if accepted, only establishes an fact from which a further inference is required to arrive at a material fact. The clearest form of direct evidence is witness observation of a fact in issue. Circumstantial evidence - evidence regarding a fact from which a court is asked to infer a further fact in order to arrive at a material fact. Authority is Shephard v The Queen. In contrast with direct evidence, circumstantial evidence if accepted settles the issue in dispute. Example of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence. Example evidence of circumstantial are motive and opportunity. Even if the jury accepts the circumstantial evidence of motive, they still must make the inference that the person killed another. Note: When looking for terms, go to a legal dictionary (lexus nexus.)



Can a person be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone?

Yes, as seen in Plomp v R. More recently Baden Clay v The Queen, which is conviction of circumstantial evidence. Where purely circumstantial evidence is reliant on, the jury should be warned not to convict unless they have excluded every possibility reasonably consistent with the accused innocence's. Authority is McKinney v The Queen. 

What is the test a jury ought to apply in order to determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict an accused person of murder?

In McKinney v The Queen; the high court said where the case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence, the jury is told not to convict unless they have excluded every possibility reasonably consistent with the accused innocence. A failure to give the requires warning or direction, in this range of situations, will generally result in a successful appeal against conviction subject to the provision that permits an appellant court to dismiss an appeal where there had been no likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.  What does Dixon CJ say at 243 is the main error in the directions given by the trial judge? “In his direction to the jury the trial judge said: "You must remember that before you can use evidence of motive, there must be a sufficiency in the evidence to establish to you that this death was not an accidental death, to establish that he did something in order to get his wife into the water, and having got her there he wilfully murdered her".

  

Did the High Court grant the appellant special leave to appeal in this matter? Which judges heard this application? Was it a majority decision? What does cur. adv. vult. mean?

Part 1 – Case Reading Exercise 

Use your knowledge of Plomp v R and the information in the recording, to complete the case notebelow.

Plomp v R - CASE NOTE Parties

Citation Court Judges

Summary of key facts

Issues for consideration/Grounds of appeal

Ratio

Important obiter

Part 2 - Group Exercise Navigating the Code 1. Go to the Learning Resources page on the LLB106 Blackboard site. 1. Select “Navigating the Code Quiz” – then complete each of the 12 questions which relate to the structure, contents and interpretation of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

1. The questions require you to read carefully and analytically to get the correct answer. 1. Your group needs to reach a consensus on each answer. Only one completed quiz per group can be uploaded. 1. Be prepared to discuss the reasoning your group used to select an answer for each question.

Part 3 – Extension Exercise It is unlikely that you will have time to complete this activity in class, but please attempt the following: Whilst the decision in Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234 was given in 1963, there have been many subsequent examples of murder convictions, based on wholly circumstantial evidence. The murder case of Gerard Baden-Clay is one example. Baden-Clay was found guilty of murdering his wife Allison Baden-Clay by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland. He appealed this decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal, who set aside the verdict of guilty and substituted it with a verdict of manslaughter. The Crown then appealed the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal to the High Court of Australia. The High Court of Australia allowed the appeal, and reinstated the guilty verdict of murder. Read the decisions of the Queensland Court of Appeal (R v Baden-Clay [2015] QCA 265) and the High Court of Australia ( The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35). Why did the Queensland Court of Appeal substitute the murder verdict for manslaughter? Why did the High Court of Australia say that the Queensland Court of Appeal was in error?...