Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Tasmania

Edwards v Tasmania

Case [2016] TASCCA 7 3 June 2016

Type to search within this case.

[2016] TASCCA 7

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Edwards v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7

PARTIES:  EDWARDS, Joseph Andrew
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 267/2015
DELIVERED ON:  3 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  12 April 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Estcourt and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence – Appeal dismissed – Taking part in an affray and causing grievous bodily harm – Attack commenced without participation by appellant – Probative force of evidence of subsequent involvement.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Smart v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 15, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3476]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  R Meredith
             Respondent:  J Shapiro
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASCCA 7
Number of paragraphs: 82

Serial No 7/2016
File No CCA 267/2015

JOSEPH ANDREW EDWARDS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
3 June 2016

Orders of the Court

Leave to appeal granted.

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 7/2016
File No CCA 267/2015

JOSEPH ANDREW EDWARDS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
3 June 2016

The applicant, Joseph Edwards, is seeking leave to appeal against convictions on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm and a charge of taking part in an affray. He was found guilty by a jury. Both charges related to fighting that occurred in Morrison Street, Hobart in the early hours of the morning of 22 April 2012. The jury found him not guilty on a charge of unlawfully assaulting a man named Hall. Two other men, Mr Ong and Mr McWilliams, were jointly charged with the applicant, and also found guilty by the jury, on the charges of causing grievous bodily harm and taking part in an affray. The applicant contends that the guilty verdicts relating to him were unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.
The evidence and the applicable legal principles have been discussed in considerable detail by Estcourt J. I have had the advantage of reading his Honour's reasons in draft form. I agree with him that leave to appeal should be granted but that the appeal should be dismissed. However my reasoning differs from his in some respects.
The applicant had three companions at the time of the fighting – Mr Ong, Mr McWilliams, and a youth whom I will refer to as TC. The evidence established that there were two separate fights. In one of them, the applicant fought Mr Hall. The assault charge related to that fight. The applicant's acquittal on that charge indicates that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his use of force against Mr Hall was unlawful. The jury may have considered his use of force to have been lawful, or possibly lawful,…

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 Edwards v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7
Case: [2016] TASCCA 7
Decision Date: 3 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant, Edwards, for taking part in an affray and causing grievous bodily harm. The dispute arose from an incident where the appellant was alleged to have participated in an assault. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Estcourt and Pearce JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the verdict of the trial judge was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence presented. This required the court to assess the probative force of the evidence concerning the appellant's subsequent involvement in the affray, particularly given that the attack itself was commenced without his participation.

The court considered the evidence of the appellant's actions after the initial assault began. It was noted that the attack was initiated by others, and the appellant joined in later. However, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's participation in the affray and his causation of grievous bodily harm. The reasoning focused on the appellant's active involvement in the subsequent events, which rendered the verdict of guilty reasonable and supportable.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Edwards v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7

Most Recent Citation

Campbell v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 156

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Shaw v Tasmania
[2022] TASCCA 2

…, followed. R v Webb; ex parte Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd R 275, not followed. Clarke v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 11, 24 Tas R 384; Edwards v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7; R v Wyles, ex parte Attorney-General [1977] Qd R 169; R v Palmer [2005] QCA 2; R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 45; Warren v The Queen [1987] WAR 314; Lacco…
Jenkins v Tasmania
[2019] TASCCA 12 Para 3

…t was wounded, as distinct from intending that the complainant be wounded. [2] Clarke v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 11, 24 Tas R 384; Edwards v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7 at [15]. [3] Cordwell v Tasmania [2019] TASSC 14 at [33].…
Campbell v The State of Western Australia
[2016] WASCA 156

…TASCCA 11 Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58; (2006) 81 ALJR 439 Darkan v The Queen [2006] HCA 34; (2006) 227 CLR 373 Edwards v The State of Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 7 Gillard v The Queen [2003] HCA 64; (2003) 219 CLR 1 Giorgianni v The Queen [1985] HCA 29; (1985) 156 CLR 473 Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51; (2011…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Smart v Tasmania
[2013] TASCCA 15 Para 1

…The principles as to an appeal such as the present were restated in a joint judgment of this Court in Smart v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 15 at [49]-[50] in the following terms: "49 With that in mind, the question for this Court is whether the verdict of the jury was 'unsafe and unsatisfactory'. In M v R (1994) 181 CLR…
Clarke v Tasmania
[2013] TASCCA 11 Para 15

…ecessary to constitute the intended crime, then each is guilty of that crime, regardless of what part each plays in its commission: Clarke v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 11. If one or more of the applicant's companions caused grievous bodily harm to Mr Bannister while the applicant was involved with them in a joint attac…
R v Hutt
[2012] NZHC 593 Para 14

…An accused will only be guilty of a crime as an abettor if he or she intentionally encourages the commission of the crime by the principal offender: Hutt v The Queen (1989) 14 Tas R 182; Roughley, Marshall and Haywood v The Queen (1995) 5 Tas R 8. Recklessness on the part of a person encouraging an assault is not suffici…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63 Para 1

…the following terms: "49 With that in mind, the question for this Court is whether the verdict of the jury was 'unsafe and unsatisfactory'. In M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494 – 495, Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ said the following as to the role of an appellate court in relation to an appeal on the basis tha…
Chidiac v The Queen
[1991] HCA 4 Para 1

…ound to act and to set aside a verdict based upon that evidence ( Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR at 618 – 619; Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 443 – 444). In doing so, the court is not substituting trial by a court of appeal for trial by jury, for the ultimate question must always be whether…
Morris v the Queen
[1987] HCA 50 Para 1

…could have been convicted: Whitehorn v R (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 660, 686; Chamberlain (No 2) (above) at 532, 601, 604, 618 – 619; Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454 at 461, 473; Chidiac v R (above) at 442 – 443."…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2)
[1984] HCA 7 Para 1

…The principles as to an appeal such as the present were restated in a joint judgment of this Court in Smart v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 15 at [49]-[50] in the following terms: "49 With that in mind, the question for this Court is whether the verdict of the jury was 'unsafe and unsatisfactory'. In M v R…
Whitehorn v the Queen
[1983] HCA 42 Para 1

…e as unsafe or unsatisfactory even if, as a matter of law, there was evidence upon which the accused could have been convicted: Whitehorn v R (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 660, 686; Chamberlain (No 2) (above) at 532, 601, 604, 618 – 619; Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454 at 461, 473; Chidiac v R (above) at 442 – 443."…
Vallance v The Queen
[1961] HCA 42 Para 13

…s or her physical act is likely to cause grievous bodily harm, and does that act with reckless indifference to that possibility: Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56; R v Bennett [1990] Tas R 72.…
Honeysett v R
[2018] VSCA 21445 Para 5

…The law seems clear that a person acting in self-defence is not guilty of affray (see R v Honeysett (1987) 10 NSWLR 638 at 640), but even if there is some uncertainty as to whether it is necessary for fighting to be unlawful per se in order to constitute an affray (see Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions (1973) 5…
Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
(1999) 2 AC 177 Para 5

…at 640), but even if there is some uncertainty as to whether it is necessary for fighting to be unlawful per se in order to constitute an affray (see Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions (1973) 57 Cr App R 915), the fact remains that the jury was instructed by the learned trial judge that a consensual fight was not unlawful, and that a fight…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Evidence Act 2001 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 6)