Bailey v Costin - [1993] QCA 404

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 404

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 261 of 1993

Brisbane

[Bailey v. Costin]

MARC BAILEY
v.
IAN MOODY COSTIN

(Appellant)

________________________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT

DAVIES J.A.
PINCUS J.A.

________________________________________________________________

J	udgment delivered 18/10/1993
R	EASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

________________________________________________________________

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________________________________________
_

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - ASSAULT - Applicant claimed insufficient evidence to support conviction for assault of a female - Whether evidence such that no reasonable magistrate could have accepted substance of complainant's account

Criminal Code, ss. 668D, 673
Aspasia Pty Ltd v. Huntress [1985] 2 Qd.R. 241
Murphy v. Porter; ex p. Murphy [1985] 1 Qd.R.
59
R. v. Free [1983] 2 Qd.R. 183
R. v. Roberston (1980) 2 A.Crim.R. 369

Counsel:	P. Callaghan for the Respondent R. Aldridge for the Appellant
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent
Edwin Dean & Associates for the Appellant
Hearing Date(s):	8 October 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 261 of 1993
Brisbane
Before	The President Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Pincus

[Bailey v. Costin]

MARC BAILEY
v.
IAN MOODY COSTIN

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 18/10/1993

This is an appeal pursuant to s. 673 of the Criminal Code against a summary conviction for assault with a circumstance of aggravation, that the person assaulted was a female. Pursuant to s. 668D the appellant has a right to appeal against his conviction on any ground which involves a question of law alone but only, relevantly, with the leave of this Court against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact.

Although the amended notice of appeal runs for nine pages, contains 14 grounds of appeal and 19 paragraphs of particulars of those grounds under the headings "Inconsistencies", "Credibility", "Core of Evidence", "Defendant's Credibility", "Relationship between Parties" and "Proof", the real basis of the appeal was a contention that the learned stipendiary magistrate should not have been satisfied, to the required standard of proof, in respect of the evidence of the complainant. There is no doubt that, if he was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence, the appeal must fail.

The appellant, the complainant, Mrs Jennifer Sutton, and her mother, Mrs Charlotte Lyons, were all involved with the West Toowoomba Croquet Club. Mrs Lyons was a member. The appellant, though a member of another club, apparently played regularly at that club. And the complainant was a former member who occasionally helped out at the club and visited it for social reasons. There was long standing animosity between the appellant and Mrs Lyons.

On the day in question, 3 March 1993, there was a tournament at the club. During the course of that tournament the appellant entered the club house to go to the toilet. He found that the only toilets in the club had been designated as female toilets and that a sign which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bailey v Costin

Details

AGLC: Bailey v Costin [1993] QCA 404
Case: [1993] QCA 404
Decision Date: 18/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Bailey v Costin, the appellant, Ian Moody Costin, challenged his conviction for assaulting Marc Bailey, which was aggravated by the fact that the victim was female. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal. The appeal was grounded on the assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, focusing on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. The appellant argued that the magistrate should not have been satisfied with the evidence to the requisite standard of proof.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence was sufficient for the magistrate to convict the appellant, considering the credibility of the complainant's account. The appellant's counsel highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and between her testimony and that of her mother. The court needed to determine if these inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the magistrate's decision to accept the complainant's evidence.

The court reasoned that the magistrate was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, given that the decision hinged significantly on this factor. The inconsistencies pointed out by the appellant were not substantial enough to prevent the magistrate from accepting the complainant's account, as the magistrate's role included discerning the weight of conflicting evidence. The court emphasised that the magistrate's decision was supported by evidence and was not so unreasonable as to warrant overturning it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original conviction.

Orders