SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | FREEMAN-QUAY v THE QUEEN |
Citation: | [2016] ACTCA 43 |
Hearing Date: | 8 August 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 6 September 2016 |
Before: | Burns, Elkaim and Ross JJ |
Decision: | See [113]-[114] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court – trial by judge alone – offence of grievous bodily harm – appeal against conviction – conviction unreasonable having regard to all of the evidence – reasonable possibility another person hit the complainant – appeal against conviction upheld. CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court – offences against the person – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – plea of guilty – appeal against sentence – manifestly excessive – sentence not unreasonable – sentence not plainly unjust – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 24, 25, 49 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68C, 68D, 37O |
Cases Cited: | Balthazaarv The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; 303 ALR 387 |
Parties: | Levi Freeman-Quay (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Dalton SC (Appellant) Ms M Jones (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 42 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Murrell CJ Date of Decision: 4 September 2015 Case Title: R v Freeman-Quay Citation: [2015] ACTSC 284 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
On 31 August 2015, following a judge alone trial, her Honour Murrell CJ found Levi Freeman-Quay (the appellant) guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to Matthew Pridham (the complainant) on 21 September 2013, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act): R v Freeman-Quay [2015] ACTSC 284 (R v Freeman-Quay). The appellant pleaded guilty to two associated offences, namely, that on 21 September 2013 he assaulted Ray Reynolds, occasioning him actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act and he assaulted Ronnie Burt. On 4 September 2015, the trial judge sentenced the appellant as follows:
(a) assault on Ray Reynolds occasioning actual bodily harm – six months imprisonment commencing on 4…
Continue reading Freeman-Quay v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Freeman-Quay v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 43
- Case
- [2016] ACTCA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the conviction for grievous bodily harm was unreasonable having regard to all of the evidence presented at trial. In relation to the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the Court was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, plainly unjust, or unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal against conviction for grievous bodily harm. It found that there was a reasonable possibility that another person, rather than the appellant, had inflicted the injuries upon the complainant. This reasonable possibility meant that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. However, the appeal against the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was dismissed, as the Court found the sentence to be neither manifestly excessive nor plainly unjust. The Court ordered that the conviction for grievous bodily harm be quashed and that a verdict of acquittal be entered.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [113]-[114]
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.