Legal Research
Cases
Bellchambers v R

Bellchambers v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 235 14 October 2008

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
DENNIS ARTHUR BELLCHAMBERS v REGINA [2008] NSWCCA 235

FILE NUMBER(S):
4637/2007

HEARING DATE(S):
8 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 October 2008

PARTIES:
Dennis Arthur Bellchambers
Regina

JUDGMENT OF:
Allsop P Johnson J Price J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/11/0737

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Freeman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
23 November 2007

COUNSEL:
Appellant - Mr S Odgers SC
Crown - Mr P G Ingram

SOLICITORS:
Appellant - Ziman and Ziman Solicitors
Crown - S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – grievous bodily harm – intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Crimes Act 1900(NSW) ss 33, 428A-428I – whether inference can be drawn from seriousness of wounds
CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – intoxication – direction as to intoxication – whether misdirection as to intoxication – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) – Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4
INTOXICATION – capacity to form specific intent.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467; 47 A Crim R 306
Spencer (2003) 137 A Crim R 444
Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183
Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
1. Grant leave to rely on misdirection as to intoxication.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Quash the conviction of the appellant.
4. Order that there be a new trial.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2007/4637
ALLSOP P
JOHNSON J
PRICE J
14 October 2008

Dennis Arthur BELLCHAMBERS v R

JUDGMENT

ALLSOP P: On 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23 August 2007 the appellant, Dennis Arthur Bellchambers, stood his trial on a charge that on 25 May 2005 at Dunbogan he maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Ms Julie Ann Barry with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s33. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 10 years commencing on 23 November 2007 and a balance of term of 3 years commencing on 23 November 2017.
The only ground of appeal argued was that the trial judge erred in his direction as to intoxication. For the reasons below I am of the view that the trial judge did err in his direction in this respect. Given that there was no complaint made at the trial by counsel for the appellant about the direction given a question of leave under the Criminal Appeal Rules, rule 4 arises. This, in turn, raises the operation of the proviso in the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s6(1).
Some background to the events of 25 May 2005 is necessary. The following is taken from the summary of trial prepared by the Crown and to which there was no demur by the appellant. The appellant and Ms Barry…

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 Bellchambers v R

Details

AGLC: Bellchambers v R [2008] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 14 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bellchambers v R involved the defendant, Bellchambers, who was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm upon a victim. The case was heard and determined by the relevant appellate court. The primary issues in the case centred around the defendant's intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the effect of his intoxication on his capacity to form such intent. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in his instructions to the jury regarding intoxication and its impact on criminal liability.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the principles governing intoxication and its role in negating the specific intent required for the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm. The defendant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by not adequately addressing the effect of intoxication on the formation of intent. The court also considered whether the inference of intent could be drawn from the seriousness of the victim's injuries.

The appellate court found that the trial judge had indeed misdirected the jury on the issue of intoxication. The judge had not sufficiently explained how voluntary intoxication could negate the specific intent required for the offence. The court concluded that this misdirection was substantial and could have affected the jury's assessment of the defendant's intent. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered. This decision underscored the importance of clear judicial directions regarding the impact of intoxication on criminal liability.

Orders