http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/retired-judge-delivers-his-verdict-on...

It is of no surprise to me that there has been considerable public disquiet at the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Baden-Clay case.

However, much of the public criticism has been misdirected. The law does not need to be changed. The simple fact is that the Court of Appeal got it wrong.

The court’s view was that the evidence in the case and the legitimate inferences from the evidence did not enable the jury to conclude that Baden-Clay intended to kill his wife, in preference to concluding that he may have killed her unintentionally by an unlawful act.

The law permits an appellate court to determine whether inferences may be drawn from proven primary facts but the law does not permit an appellate court to substitute its own inferences for those legitimate inferences which a jury must have drawn to convict in any particular case.

ASSESSMENT

It is my opinion that in the present case there was clear evidence which permitted the jury to consider that there had been an intentional killing and to reject the manslaughter hypothesis.

For a clear exposition of the law in relation to the use of evidence in a circumstantial case (as this was) I refer the reader the unanimous decision of a very distinguished bench of five High Court Justices in PLOMP v R (1963) 110 CLR 234- Especially the judgement of Menzies J, at pp. 244 to 247.

The Court of Appeal completely endorsed the view that the evidence in the Baden-Clay case was capable of supporting the conclusion that the appellant had caused his wife’s death by an unlawful act but they reasoned that in the particular circumstances a finding of an intent to kill could not be sustained.

the judge has 50 years experience but withheld his identity to avoid controversy..

A RETIRED interstate Supreme Court judge delivers his verdict on the controversial downgrading of Gerard Baden Clay’s murder conviction by the Court of Appeal.

The judge, who has more than 50 years’ experience as a legal practitioner and judge, has defended, prosecuted and tried many cases of murder.

He is withholding his identity only to avoid controversy.


now do you believe???????????????????????????

Cods, just SO YOU KNOW :

1.Well done!

2. I still have that gastric pain lol.

cods wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:04pm:


We need to know exactly who this judge is before we can make an assessment on his verdict.

red baron wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:50pm:


You are on your own on that matter, Mr Baron.  Not even the State of Queensland has taken that position in its appeal to the High Court.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:31pm:


I suspect it will be a Victorian (if it is in fact a Judge) as the Victorian Court of Appeal has apparently taken a different view in several cases of circumstantial evidence as has the Queensland Court of Appeal.  Neither Court is bound by the decisions of the other.