Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction for doing grievous bodily harm with intent - Issue of identification of applicant as driver of vehicle which was driven at and struck victim - Effect of admission of identity - Submission of no case raised question of capacity of evidence to support conclusion of intent to do grievous bodily harm - Validity of ground challenging ruling that there was a case to answer - Direction required with respect to element of specific intent

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Cutter v The Queen (1997) 143 ALR 498
Davis v The Queen (1990) 5 WAR 269
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Duke v The Queen [1999] WASCA 215
Jukov v The Queen (1994) 76 A Crim R 353
Moore v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980536; 18 September 1998
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
Naylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960147; 20 March 1996
Penny v The Queen (1997) 91 A Crim R 288
R v Berry [1998] Crim LR 487
R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Cockley (1984) 79 Cr App R 181
R v Smith [2000] 1 All ER 263
R v Wood [1974] VR 117
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Strachan v Graves (1997) 141 FLR 283
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145

Case(s) also cited:

Butler v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950454; 21 August 1995
"C" (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950522; 29 September 1995
Gebert v The Queen (1992) 60 SASR 110
Ginks v Phillips, unreported; SCt of WA (White J); Library No 930452; 20 August 1993
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
McGinley v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930533; 1 October 1993
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Parker v The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610
Parker v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960740; 20 December 1996
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
R v Deering (1986) 43 SASR 252
R…

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 Draper v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Draper v The Queen [2000] WASCA 160
Case: [2000] WASCA 160
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Draper v The Queen involved the applicant, Draper, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the legal issues arising from the trial and conviction. The central dispute was whether Draper was correctly identified as the driver of the vehicle that struck the victim, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Court was also required to determine if the ground of appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence to establish intent was valid and whether the trial judge erred in ruling that there was a case to answer.

The legal issues before the Court were multifaceted, focusing on the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence concerning Draper's identity and intent. The Court needed to assess whether the identification of Draper as the driver was reliable and if this identification, combined with other evidence, was sufficient to establish the requisite intent. Additionally, the Court examined whether the submission of no case to answer was validly raised and if the trial judge's ruling on this matter was correct. The challenge to the specific intent element of the crime also required scrutiny to determine whether the evidence was adequate to support the conviction.

The Court concluded that the identification of Draper as the driver was sufficiently reliable, and the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was adequate to support a finding of intent. The Court found that the submission of no case to answer was validly raised and addressed the trial judge's ruling, affirming the judge's decision. The Court held that the evidence, including the identification and other circumstances, was sufficient to establish the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Court also provided direction on the necessity for the prosecution to prove specific intent in cases of this nature. The outcome of the appeal upheld the conviction, affirming Draper's guilt.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the applicant. The judgment clarified the requirements for establishing identity and intent in such cases and reinforced the importance of a thorough evaluation of evidence in criminal trials. The decision provided guidance for future trials involving similar issues of identification and intent.

Orders