Queensland Police v Timbrell - [2016] QMC 17

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Police v Timbrell [2016] QMC 17

PARTIES:

Queensland Police
(Applicant)

v

Francis Kevin TIMBRELL
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00131000/16(4)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATES:

31 May 2016 and 3 June 20f16

ACTING MAGISTRATE:

M Morrow

ORDER:

Defendant not guilty

CATCHWORDS:

Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm - where the defendant and complainant engaged in an altercation at the defendant’s residence - definition and proof of “bodily harm” – whether injury or pain interferes with health or comfort and is more than “transient or trifling”

Criminal law — Verdict — Assault occasioning bodily harm simpliciter alleged — Whether verdict of guilty of common assault available — The Criminal Code, ss. 339, 575.

SOLICITORS:

Mr C Fox appeared for Queensland Police Prosecutions

Defendant on his own behalf

Francis Kevin TIMBRELL is charged with an offence that on the 20th day of June 2015 at Gracemere in the State of Queensland he unlawfully assaulted one Peta Jamie ELMER and thereby did her bodily harm.
Mr Timbrell has represented himself. It is plainly unfortunate that he has not had the benefit of legal representation. It is apparent that he has experienced difficulty meeting the demands which the adversarial system places upon a person without professional skill and in understanding the role of the court within that system.
The prosecution has called Peta Jamie ELMER and Constable Christopher Johnson to give evidence on their behalf.
The defendant gave evidence as well as Margaret Dulce and Frederick Huemiller.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offence and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
The defendant does not have to give evidence, or call other people to give evidence on his behalf, or otherwise produce evidence. That he has done so does not mean that he assumed a responsibility of proving his innocence. The burden of proof has not shifted to him. His evidence is added to the evidence called for the prosecution. As I have said, the prosecution has the burden of proving each of the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and it is upon the whole of the evidence that I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the case before the defendant may be convicted.
There was also no testimony from a Doctor. Whilst it may appear they might have been able to give some relevant evidence I cannot speculate about what they may have said if they had been called. I can only act on the basis of the evidence that has been called and only that evidence.[1]
[1] In Dyers (2002) 210 CLR 285; 76 ALJR 1552; 192 ALR 181; [2002] HCA 45 at [6] Gaudron and Hayne JJ said: “Further, as a general rule, a trial judge should not direct the jury in a criminal trial that the prosecution would be expected to have…

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 Queensland Police v Timbrell 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: [2016] QMC 17
Decision Date: 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Police brought proceedings against the defendant, Timbrell, for assault occasioning bodily harm. The altercation took place at Timbrell’s residence, where he and the complainant engaged in a physical dispute. The court was required to determine whether the complainant’s injuries constituted bodily harm as defined in the Criminal Code, and whether the defendant’s actions amounted to assault occasioning bodily harm. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the injuries or pain experienced by the complainant interfered with their health or comfort, and whether they were more than transient or trifling. Additionally, the court examined the availability of a verdict of guilty of common assault under the circumstances.

The court found that the injuries sustained by the complainant did not meet the threshold of bodily harm as defined in the Criminal Code. The injuries were determined to be transient and trifling, not interfering with the complainant’s health or comfort to the required extent. Consequently, the court ruled that Timbrell could not be found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm. Furthermore, the court concluded that a verdict of guilty of common assault was not available given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the altercation. The decision hinged on the precise definitions and criteria set forth in the Criminal Code.

Timbrell was acquitted of the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court's ruling was grounded in its interpretation of the statutory definitions of bodily harm and the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The injuries were deemed to be of a minor and temporary nature, not meeting the statutory criteria for bodily harm. Consequently, Timbrell was found not guilty of the offence. The court did not consider a verdict of common assault appropriate given the circumstances and the nature of the injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant not guilty

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

CJ, KIEFEL, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CJ, KIEFEL, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Queensland Police v Timbrell [2016] QMC 17
PARTIES:	Queensland Police (Applicant) v Francis Kevin TIMBRELL (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00131000/16(4)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Criminal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATES:	31 May 2016 and 3 June 20f16
ACTING MAGISTRATE:	M Morrow
ORDER:	Defendant not guilty
CATCHWORDS:	Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm - where the defendant and complainant engaged in an altercation at the defendant’s residence - definition and proof of “bodily harm” – whether injury or pain interferes with health or comfort and is more than “transient or trifling” *Criminal law — Verdict — Assault occasioning bodily harm simpliciter alleged — Whether verdict of guilty of common assault available — The Criminal Code, ss. 339, 575.*
SOLICITORS:	Mr C Fox appeared for Queensland Police Prosecutions Defendant on his own behalf