BJR v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 43 16 June 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 185 A Crim R 360

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: BJR v R [2008] NSWCCA 43

HEARING DATE(S): 16 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 36; Latham J at 47

DECISION: 1. Appellant's appeal against conviction on Counts 1 and 3 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CONVICTION APPEAL - maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm - circumstantial case against father of two infants - co-incidence evidence whether open to jury to draw inference of specific intent.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: De Gruchy v The Queen [2002] HCA 33 ; (2002) 211 CLR 85
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53 ; (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13
R v Micallef (2002) 136 A Crim R 127
R v Kaldor (2004) 150 A Crim R 271 ; Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
Knight v R [1992] HCA 56; (1992) 175 CLR 495
Martin v Osborne [1936] HCA 23; (1936) 55 CLR 367
Plomp v R [1963] HCA 44; (1963) 110 CLR 234
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
R v Barreto (unreported, CCA, 29 September 1993)
Barca v R [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82
Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573
Parker v R [1963] HCA 14; (1963) 111 CLR 610
Cutter v R [1997] HCA 7; (1997) 143 ALR 498
R v Micallef (2002) 136 A Crim R 127
R v Kaldor (2004) 150 A Crim R 271
Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
R v Barreto NSWCCA (unreported) 29 September 1993
R v Pearson (2002) 137 A Crim R 419 ; [2002] NSWCCA 429

PARTIES: Appellant - BJR
Respondent - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/4917

COUNSEL: Appellant - S Odgers SC
Crown - P Ingram

SOLICITORS: Appellant - S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission)
Crown - S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0182

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bennett DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 2 June 2006

2006/4917

BEAZLEY JA
HULME J
LATHAM J
16 June 2008

BJR v REGINA

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I have read in draft the judgments of Hulme J and Latham J. I agree with Latham J that the appeal in respect of count 3 should be dismissed for the reasons her Honour gives. I wish to express my own reasons in relation to count 1.

2 I agree, as Latham J points out at 49, that the Crown case is an entirely circumstantial one. It is thus convenient to commence with a consideration of the appeal in respect of count 1 by reference to the principles that govern the finding of “intention” in a circumstantial case. Those principles are to be found in the decisions of the High Court in Knight v R [1992] HCA…

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 BJR v R

Details

AGLC: BJR v R [2008] NSWCCA 43
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 43
Decision Date: 16 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, BJR, appealed his conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on his two infant daughters. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary concern of the court was whether the jury could reasonably infer from the circumstantial evidence that the appellant had the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm to his daughters.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to infer the specific intent required for the offence. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the jury should not have been permitted to draw the inference of specific intent from the circumstances. The prosecution contended that the evidence was indeed sufficient for a jury to make such an inference.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer the appellant's specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The evidence included the nature and severity of the injuries inflicted on the infants, the timing and circumstances of the injuries, and other relevant factors. The court emphasised that in cases where direct evidence is lacking, juries are permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the circumstances presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders