England v Queen

Case [2001] FCA 1722


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

England v Queen [2001] FCA 1722

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – manslaughter – death followed two distinct fights between accused and deceased – causation – cause of death established as subarachnoid haemorrhage – alleged error in trial Judge’s conclusion that the deceased’s death was caused by a blow inflicted in the second incident rather than in the first incident.

CRIMINAL LAW – manslaughter – self-defence, whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did – where the accused person raising a plea of self-defence was the original aggressor – standard and onus of proof.

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – manslaughter – severity of sentence – sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years – factors to be taken into account.

Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645, applied
R v Williams [2000] NSWCCA 136, considered
R v Kenta No SCC 81 of 1987, distinguished
R v Gunn (SC of Victoria 1617 of 1993), considered
R v Risteski [1999] NSWSC 1248, distinguished
R v Khouzame [2000] NSWCCA 505, considered

BARRY JOSEPH ENGLAND v THE QUEEN

A 23 of 2001

BLACK CJ, SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ
21 DECEMBER 2001
BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 23 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

BARRY JOSEPH ENGLAND
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2.        The appeal against sentence also be dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 23 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

BARRY JOSEPH ENGLAND
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

21 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

  1. The appellant was charged with unlawfully killing Bradley John Stewart on 1 January 2000.  He was tried and convicted before Miles CJ, sitting without a jury.  The Chief Justice sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years, fixing a non-parole period of four years to date from 24 April 2001.  The appellant appeals both against his conviction and the sentence.  An alleged co-offender, Christopher Culshaw was also charged and pleaded guilty.  Culshaw’s appeal against sentence was heard with this appeal, and we are publishing separate reasons in connection with it.  It will, however, be necessary to refer to those reasons when we come to deal with this appellant’s appeal against sentence. 

    OUTLINE OF EVENTS

  2. The appellant, Christopher Culshaw, his brother, Peter and others spent New Year’s…

Continue reading England v Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
England v Queen [2001] FCA 1722
Case
[2001] FCA 1722
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of England versus Queen, the High Court of Australia was presented with an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant, England, had been convicted of various offences, including murder, and was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal sought to overturn both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the trial was conducted in a manner that violated the appellant's rights and that the sentence was excessive. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the trial process was flawed in a way that warranted a reversal of the conviction, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The court examined the conduct of the trial and found that there were no errors that warranted a retrial or an overturn of the conviction. It was determined that the trial judge had managed the proceedings fairly and had not erred in any way that could have affected the outcome. The court also considered the severity of the sentence in light of the gravity of the crimes committed. The judges concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences, and that there was no basis to interfere with the sentencing decision.

Following this analysis, the court dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. It was held that the trial process had been conducted appropriately and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes. The court's decision upheld the original findings and sentence, affirming the appellant's conviction and the penalty imposed. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. The appeal against sentence also be 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.