R v Beer and Massey - [2002] QCA 397

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Beer & Massey [2002] QCA 397

PARTIES:

R
v
BEER, John Joseph James
MASSEY, Nickolas Daniel Massey

(appellants/applicants)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 108 of 2002
CA No 103 of 2002
CA No 151 of 2002
DC No 3399 of 2001

DC No 288 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals Against Conviction

Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURTS:

District Court at Brisbane

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and McPherson JJA and Wilson J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. In CA No 103 of 2002 and CA No 108 of 2002: Appeals against conviction dismissed and applications for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

2. In CA No 151 of 2002: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellants had been charged with assault occasioning bodily harm in company while armed – where appellants convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – whether verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory because of inconsistencies – whether use by one appellant of a baseball bat to assault complainant was an essential part of the prosecution case – whether it was open to the jury to accept the complainant’s evidence that he was followed and assaulted but to not be satisfied that a baseball bat was used to assault him

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where appellants convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – where each appellant sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of two years – whether sentences manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where applicant stabbed complainant three times in chest area – where applicant sentenced on the basis that he acted in self defence but, in doing so, had used excessive force – where applicant sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and given recommendation for eligibility for parole after 12 months – totality of applicant’s criminal conduct – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied.
R v Armstrong, CA No 10 of 1995, 14 March 1995, considered.
R v Bain [2000] QCA 121; CA No 440 of 1999, 10 April 2000, considered.
R v Dempsey & Perks; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 520; CA No 328 of 1999 and CA No…

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 R v Beer and Massey 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: [2002] QCA 397
Decision Date: 4 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals arose from convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm in company while armed, with Beer and Massey contending that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies. The appeal against sentence related to the length of the sentences imposed. The applicants argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court considered these arguments in the context of the case's facts, including the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding the use of a baseball bat during the assault. The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's account of being followed and assaulted without finding that a baseball bat was used, thus upholding the conviction. The sentences were also deemed not to be manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offences and the applicants' criminal conduct.

The reasoning of the court hinged on the jury's role in evaluating the evidence presented, and their capacity to accept part of the complainant's testimony while disregarding other aspects. The court held that the jury's decision, though it might include some inconsistencies, did not render it unreasonable or unsafe. As for the sentences, the court found that they were within the range appropriate for the crimes committed, taking into account the applicants' criminal histories and the circumstances surrounding the offences. Consequently, the appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 103 of 2002 and CA No 108 of 2002: Appeals against conviction dismissed and applications for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

2. In CA No 151 of 2002: Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Beer & Massey [2002] QCA 397
PARTIES:	R v BEER, John Joseph James MASSEY, Nickolas Daniel Massey (appellants/applicants)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 108 of 2002 CA No 103 of 2002 CA No 151 of 2002 DC No 3399 of 2001 DC No 288 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals Against Conviction Sentence Applications
ORIGINATING COURTS:	District Court at Brisbane District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. In CA No 103 of 2002 and CA No 108 of 2002: Appeals against conviction dismissed and applications for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed. 2. In CA No 151 of 2002: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellants had been charged with assault occasioning bodily harm in company while armed – where appellants convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – whether verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory because of inconsistencies – whether use by one appellant of a baseball bat to assault complainant was an essential part of the prosecution case – whether it was open to the jury to accept the complainant’s evidence that he was followed and assaulted but to not be satisfied that a baseball bat was used to assault him CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where appellants convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – where each appellant sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of two years – whether sentences manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where applicant stabbed complainant three times in chest area – where applicant sentenced on the basis that he acted in self defence but, in doing so, had used excessive force – where applicant sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and given recommendation for eligibility for parole after 12 months – totality of applicant’s criminal conduct – whether sentence manifestly excessive Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied. R v Armstrong, CA No 10 of 1995, 14 March 1995, considered. R v Bain [2000] QCA 121; CA No 440 of 1999, 10 April 2000, considered. R v Dempsey & Perks; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 520; CA No 328 of 1999 and CA No…