Legal Research
Cases
Phillips v R

Phillips v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 159 10 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Phillips v R [2016] NSWCCA 159
Hearing dates: 22 July 2016
Decision date: 10 August 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
N Adams J at [25]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – causing grievous bodily harm with intent – joint assault on victim – whether judge erred by not directing jury as to causation – whether verdict unreasonable because evidence incapable of establishing causation – where sole issue at trial was identification (recognition) – no error in failure to direct on matters not at issue in trial – leave to appeal refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 33(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules r 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 191
Cases Cited: Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; 85 CLR 437
ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6; 295 ALR 624
Papakosmas v R [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297
Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107
R v Greatorex (1994) 74 A Crim R 496
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Grant Phillips (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms A Francis (Applicant)
Mr P Ingram SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Bannisters Lawyers
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2012/392603
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

18 December 2014

Before:

Armitage DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/392603

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J and the additional observations of N Adams J.
R A HULME J: Richard Phillips (“the applicant”) was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s 33(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
The Crown alleged that he was one of four people who were involved in a serious assault upon a man who sustained injuries that are conceded to have amounted to grievous bodily harm.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction (but not against the relatively modest sentence that was imposed) on the basis that the trial judge erred by not directing the jury that it was necessary for them to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he, personally, caused the grievous bodily harm. It is also contended that the verdict is unreasonable because the evidence was incapable of establishing that matter. These contentions were said to arise out of the fact that the Crown did not rely upon a case of joint criminal enterprise liability.
The problem is that the defence case at trial was that he was not a party to the assault upon the victim at all. The issue he relied upon was whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim had correctly identified him as one of the attackers. No argument was advanced as…

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 Phillips v R

Details

AGLC: Phillips v R [2016] NSWCCA 159
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date: 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the appellant, Phillips, sought to overturn his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent as part of a joint assault. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the trial judge made an error in not directing the jury on the matter of causation. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable due to the evidence being incapable of establishing causation. The crux of the trial was the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants, with no other issues being contested.

The legal issues before the court centred on the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed the jury on causation, as it was a necessary element of the offence, despite the trial focusing solely on identification. The court had to determine whether this omission constituted an error and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the grievous bodily harm with intent.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in failing to direct the jury on matters not in issue at the trial. The court found that since the sole issue at the trial was the identification of the appellant, any direction on causation would have been irrelevant. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the joint assault. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal. The leave to appeal was refused due to the lack of merit in the arguments presented.

Orders