Brown v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0286

DARREN BROWN	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU, NIALL and EMERTON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 February 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 February 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 26
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Brown (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 16 November 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Recklessly causing injury – Miscarriage of justice – Failure to disclose relevant information – Fresh evidence available since conviction – Prior inconsistent account – Appeal allowed – Whether new trial ordered or judgment of acquittal entered – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 277 – Difficulties associated with retrial – Admissibility of evidence of prior acquittals – Judgment of acquittal entered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant:	Mr M H Thomas	Tony Hargreaves & Partners Lawyers
For the Respondent:	Ms M Mahady	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KYROU JA
NIALL JA
EMERTON JA:

Introduction

The applicant was arraigned in the County Court on an indictment containing five charges. The charges related to two occasions on which the applicant was alleged to have assaulted the complainant, with whom he was then in a de facto relationship.

Charges 1 and 2 (intentionally causing injury and alternatively recklessly causing injury, respectively) concerned an allegation that on 9 May 2015 the applicant grabbed the complainant and threw her into a bathroom, causing her to hit her head on the tiles of a shower wall.

Charges 3 and 4 (intentionally causing injury and alternatively recklessly causing injury, respectively) related to an allegation that on a different day (27 March 2016), the applicant had grabbed the complainant’s arms while pushing her into a bedroom and holding her down over a wooden bed end railing, causing bruising to her arms and back. It was alleged that immediately after that incident, the complainant moved to the lounge room where the applicant pushed her and sent her ‘flying’ across the room into a ‘tub’ chair (charge 5 — common law assault).

The applicant was found guilty of charge 4, acquitted on the other charges and, following a plea, was convicted and fined $4,000.

Grounds of appeal

There are two proposed grounds of appeal. The first contends that the prosecution failed to disclose relevant information in its possession. The second is that fresh evidence has become available since the time of conviction which, had it been before the jury, would have led the jury to hold a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt or would have given rise to a significant possibility that the jury would have held such doubt.

The respondent has properly conceded ground 2, and it is convenient to address it immediately. In light of the respondent’s concession, the applicant did not press ground 1.

Ground 2

In her statement and in evidence at the committal and at trial, the complainant was consistent in her account that the two assaults on 27 March 2016…

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 Brown v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 26
Case: [2020] VSCA 26
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Brown, was convicted of recklessly causing injury to the victim, and he appealed against his conviction. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the trial process and the potential for a miscarriage of justice due to undisclosed information. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the failure to disclose certain information to the appellant, coupled with the availability of fresh evidence since the conviction, constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting either a new trial or a judgment of acquittal.

The court examined whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was compromised by the non-disclosure of relevant information and whether this failure had any bearing on the outcome of the trial. It also considered the difficulties associated with conducting a retrial, including the potential admissibility of evidence of prior acquittals, and the implications of such evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction should be quashed due to the miscarriage of justice caused by the failure to disclose critical information. Given the difficulties in conducting a retrial and the potential for prejudice, the court opted to enter a judgment of acquittal instead of ordering a new trial.

In light of the findings, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and entered a judgment of acquittal in favour of the appellant. This decision underscored the importance of fair trial principles and the potential consequences of non-disclosure in criminal proceedings. The court's ruling highlighted the need for strict adherence to disclosure obligations and the consequences that may arise from any failure to do so.

Orders