R v Barratt - [2014] QCA 94

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Barratt [2014] QCA 94

PARTIES:

R
v
BARRATT, Jamie Lee
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 18 of 2014
DC No 294 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Boddice and Thomas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The appeal is allowed.

2.    The conviction is set aside.

3.    A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm by a jury – where the appellant and the complainant were involved in an altercation – where the appellant admitted that the complainant’s injury amounted to grievous bodily harm – where, at trial, they gave different versions of the incident – where the issues at trial were whether the complainant was the aggressor and whether self-defence was excluded under s271(1) of the Criminal Code – where the complainant’s evidence was implausible in critical respects – where the jury acting reasonably could not have accepted the complainant as a reliable witness so as to be satisfied on his evidence of the commission of the offence – whether the jury could, accepting the appellant's account of events, nonetheless be satisfied that self-defence under s271(1) was excluded on the basis that the appellant had used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself or that the force used was likely to cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm by a jury – where the issues at trial were whether the complainant was the aggressor and whether self-defence was excluded under s271(1) of the Criminal Code – where no direction was given as to self-defence under s271(2) of the Code – where the appellant gave evidence of an assault by the complainant likely to cause a reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm and capable of justifying a belief that it was necessary for him to respond with force such as to cause grievous bodily harm – where defence counsel did not seek a direction under s271(2) – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 271(1), s 271(2)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
James v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 427; (2014) 306 ALR 1; [2014] HCA 6, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn QC for the applicant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Spina Kyle Waldon for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The appellant…

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 R v Barratt

Details

AGLC: R v Barratt [2014] QCA 94
Case: [2014] QCA 94
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Barratt, the appellant appealed against his conviction of grievous bodily harm, arguing that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence. The trial had involved an altercation between the appellant and the complainant, resulting in the complainant’s injury, which both parties acknowledged amounted to grievous bodily harm. The main issues at trial were whether the complainant was the aggressor and whether self-defence was excluded under section 271(1) of the Criminal Code. Both parties presented conflicting accounts of the incident, with the complainant’s version being implausible in critical respects. The jury, acting reasonably, could not have accepted the complainant as a reliable witness so as to be satisfied on his evidence of the commission of the offence. Furthermore, even accepting the appellant's account, the jury could not have been satisfied that self-defence under section 271(1) was excluded on the basis that the appellant had used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself or that the force used was likely to cause grievous bodily harm.

The court examined whether the verdict was unreasonable and if the failure to direct the jury on self-defence under section 271(2) of the Criminal Code constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appellant had provided evidence of an assault by the complainant likely to cause a reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm and capable of justifying a belief that it was necessary for him to respond with force such as to cause grievous bodily harm. However, defence counsel did not seek a direction under section 271(2). The court concluded that the verdict was unreasonable and that the failure to direct the jury on self-defence under section 271(2) constituted a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a retrial ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The conviction is set aside.

3. A retrial is ordered.

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.

CITATION:	R v Barratt [2014] QCA 94
PARTIES:	R v BARRATT, Jamie Lee (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 18 of 2014 DC No 294 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 April 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Boddice and Thomas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The conviction is set aside. 3. A retrial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm by a jury – where the appellant and the complainant were involved in an altercation – where the appellant admitted that the complainant’s injury amounted to grievous bodily harm – where, at trial, they gave different versions of the incident – where the issues at trial were whether the complainant was the aggressor and whether self-defence was excluded under s271(1) of the Criminal Code – where the complainant’s evidence was implausible in critical respects – where the jury acting reasonably could not have accepted the complainant as a reliable witness so as to be satisfied on his evidence of the commission of the offence – whether the jury could, accepting the appellant's account of events, nonetheless be satisfied that self-defence under s271(1) was excluded on the basis that the appellant had used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself or that the force used was likely to cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm by a jury – where the issues at trial were whether the complainant was the aggressor and whether self-defence was excluded under s271(1) of the Criminal Code – where no direction was given as to self-defence under s271(2) of the Code – where the appellant gave evidence of an assault by the complainant likely to cause a reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm and capable of justifying a belief that it was necessary for him to respond with force such as to cause grievous bodily harm – where defence counsel did not seek a direction under s271(2) – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 271(1), s 271(2) M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited James v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 427; (2014) 306 ALR 1; [2014] HCA 6, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn QC for the applicant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Spina Kyle Waldon for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent