Legal Research
Cases
Doyle v The King

Doyle v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 120 31 May 2024

Appeal

Recklessly cause serious injury

Fundamental Irregularity

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0093

HAYDEN DOYLE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 May 2024
DATE OF REASONS:	5 June 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 120
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Doyle [2023] VCC 596 (Judge Doyle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Recklessly cause serious injury – Juror falling asleep – Whether fundamental irregularity – Whether a failure of process – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr CK Wareham
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams
Solicitors
Applicant:	Adrian Dessi Legal
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KAYE JA:

Introduction

On 5 October 2021, a jury empanelled in the County Court to try him found the applicant guilty of recklessly causing serious injury (charge 3, as an alternative to charge 2), but acquitted him of making a threat to kill (charge 1) and intentionally causing serious injury (charge 2).[1]
[1]On 3 April 2023, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to four years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months.
There was no dispute between the parties that, at various times during the trial, one of the twelve jurors appeared to be asleep. In this Court, the applicant contended that so much occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, but the respondent demurred.
The applicant’s proposed ground of appeal was formulated as follows:
A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as a consequence of a fundamental irregularity occurring in the applicant’s trial where:
(a) a juror repeatedly fell asleep during parts of the evidence, and
(b) the learned trial judge failed to discharge the jury.
At the conclusion of oral argument in this Court on 31 May 2024, we made orders that the application for leave to appeal against conviction be granted; the appeal be allowed; the conviction be set aside; and a new trial be had. These are our reasons for those orders.

Evidence and issues in the trial

On 26 October 2019, the complainant, Alex Van Staveren, attended the ‘Deck Bar’ in Frankston. Separately, the applicant and a group of his friends also attended the Deck Bar. The applicant and Mr Van Staveren did not know each other, but they had a mutual acquaintance, Matthew Luisetto, who had gone to the Deck Bar with the applicant and others. In the course of the evening, Mr Van Staveren saw Mr Luisetto — whom he had not seen for years — at the venue, and the two had a conversation before parting.
The next morning, at about 2.00 am, Mr Van Staveren went to a lavatory. As he came out, he saw two males, one of whom was Brad Jenkins. Mr Van Staveren asked Mr Jenkins about a large scar on the side of Mr Jenkins’ face, and the conversation became heated. After Mr Van Staveren and Mr Jenkins parted, the…

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 Doyle v The King

Details

AGLC: Doyle v The King [2024] VSCA 120
Case: [2024] VSCA 120
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Doyle v The King involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Doyle, for recklessly causing serious injury. The appellant was found guilty of the offence by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in this appeal was whether the conduct of one of the jurors during the trial amounted to a fundamental irregularity, a failure of process, or resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the juror's falling asleep during the trial constituted a fundamental irregularity that warranted a new trial, whether this conduct amounted to a failure of process, and whether it resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant's counsel argued that the juror's inattention significantly impaired the fairness of the trial, thus necessitating a fresh trial. The Crown, however, contended that the incident did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The court examined the nature of the juror's conduct and its impact on the trial's fairness. The High Court held that the juror's falling asleep during the trial was indeed a significant irregularity. The court found that such conduct could impair the jury's ability to impartially and attentively assess the evidence, which is crucial for a fair trial. Consequently, the court concluded that this irregularity constituted a failure of process and led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The High Court ordered a new trial for the appellant.

Orders