R v Bartzis - [2012] QCA 225

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bartzis [2012] QCA 225

PARTIES:

R
v
BARTZIS, Stavros
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 312 of 2011
DC No 457 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2012

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted after a five day trial of one count of grievous bodily harm – where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment – where parole release date set at half way point of sentence – where the appellant represented himself – whether the trial judge gave the appellant sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge ruled various pieces of evidence, including 000 calls made by the appellant and the appellant’s record of interview inadmissible – where trial judge ruled evidence of conversation between the appellant and the complainant’s mother the morning after the attack was admissible – whether the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of each document

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258; [1975] HCA 21, considered
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512; [1981] HCA 46, cited
R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300; [1993] QCA 419, cited
R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1, cited
Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267; [1974] HCA 14, considered

COUNSEL:

B H P Mumford for the appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bernard Bradley for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, for those reasons.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: On 1 November 2011, the appellant Stavros Bartzis, was convicted on a single count of an offence against s 320 of the Criminal Code in that on 10 February 2009, he did grievous bodily harm to Steven Franey. He was that day sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years with a date for release on parole fixed at 30 April 2013.

The appellant appeals against his conviction. Counsel who represented the appellant at the hearing of the appeal informed the court that an application for leave to appeal against sentence that had been filed, was not being pursued. The court ordered that that application be dismissed.

Grounds of…

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 Bartzis

Details

AGLC: R v Bartzis [2012] QCA 225
Case: [2012] QCA 225
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury following a five-day trial of one count of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to three years imprisonment with parole eligibility at the halfway point. The appellant represented himself and argued that he was not guilty. He now appeals against his conviction and sentence. The primary ground for appeal is that the trial judge did not provide the appellant with sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial. The appellant further argued that the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of certain evidence.

The court considered whether the trial judge gave the appellant sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial and whether the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the trial judge provided the appellant with all the information he needed to have a fair trial. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in determining the admissibility of evidence. The evidence was either hearsay or privileged and therefore inadmissible. The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of a conversation between the appellant and the complainant’s mother the morning after the attack.

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence were upheld. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence be affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v Bartzis [2012] QCA 225
PARTIES:	R v BARTZIS, Stavros (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 312 of 2011 DC No 457 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2012
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Fraser and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted after a five day trial of one count of grievous bodily harm – where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment – where parole release date set at half way point of sentence – where the appellant represented himself – whether the trial judge gave the appellant sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge ruled various pieces of evidence, including 000 calls made by the appellant and the appellant’s record of interview inadmissible – where trial judge ruled evidence of conversation between the appellant and the complainant’s mother the morning after the attack was admissible – whether the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of each document Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258; [1975] HCA 21, considered MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512; [1981] HCA 46, cited R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300; [1993] QCA 419, cited R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1, cited Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267; [1974] HCA 14, considered
COUNSEL:	B H P Mumford for the appellant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bernard Bradley for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent