Haralampos Korres v The Queen - [2013] ACTCA 53

HARALAMPOS KORRES v THE QUEEN
[2013] ACTCA 53 (20 December 2013)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against conviction – whether verdict was “unsafe and unsatisfactory” – several different versions of events provided by Crown witnesses of circumstances of assault – open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of having assaulted complainant – appeal dismissed.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against conviction – jury directed that decision to reject witness’s evidence should be based on rational grounds able to be pointed to by juror – whether jury misdirected – whether trial judge conferred upon witnesses the benefit of a presumption of truthfulness – directions were not “standard” – whether directions had potential to confuse jurors – even if point decided in appellant’s failure, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice – s 37O(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Offences against the person – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – s 24, Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Manunta SCSA 20 December 1988, unreported
Richardson v R [2013] NSWCCA 218

Australian Criminal Trial Directions (Tilmouth and Glissan, LexisNexis Butterworths, 1995)
Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2002)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 48 of 2012
No. SCC 343 of 2009

Judge: Penfold and Buchanan JJ and Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 20 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 48 of 2012

) No. SCC 343 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:
HARALAMPOS KORRES Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold and Buchanan JJ and Nield AJ
Date:  20 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 48 of 2012

) No. SCC 343 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:
HARALAMPOS KORRES Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Penfold and Buchanan JJ and Nield AJ
Date:  20 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

PENFOLD J:

I have had the opportunity to read the Nield AJ’s judgment in draft, and gratefully adopt his description of the trial and the evidence.

I agree with Nield AJ that on the evidence before the jury, it was open to the jury to reach the verdict that was reached, and that Ground 1 of the appeal should fail.

As to Ground 2, however, I consider that the part of the trial judge’s directions complained of by the appellant was inappropriate and in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haralampos Korres v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] ACTCA 53
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haralampos Korres appealed his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 24 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT). The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Penfold and Buchanan JJ and Nield AJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, given inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Crown witnesses regarding the circumstances of the assault, and whether the jury had been misdirected by the trial judge. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge's directions concerning the rejection of witness evidence were flawed, potentially conferring a presumption of truthfulness upon witnesses and confusing the jury.

The Court found that, despite the differing accounts provided by Crown witnesses, it remained open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Regarding the directions on witness evidence, the Court acknowledged they were not standard but concluded that even if there was a misdirection, no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, referencing section 37O(3) of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT).

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal 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.