R v Beetham - [2014] QCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Beetham [2014] QCA 131

PARTIES:

R
v
BEETHAM, Matthew Richard Colin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 17 of 2014
DC No 348 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore 7 March 2014
Reasons delivered Friday 6 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each agreeing as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 7 March 2014:

1.        The appeal is allowed.

2.        The conviction is set aside.

3.        A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was a repeat customer of the business managed by the complainant – where the business supplied parts which were neither paid for nor returned – where the complainant phoned the appellant to discuss the payment or return of the parts and a heated argument developed – where the complainant gave evidence that the appellant punched him with his right closed fist on the left side of his jaw – where the appellant gave evidence that the complainant threw a punch which the appellant was able to duck and only then did he punch the complainant – where the appellant's account was supported by all eyewitnesses other than the complainant and raised s 271(2) Criminal Code – where the trial judge directed the jury only in terms of s 271(1) Criminal Code – where neither counsel at trial nor the judge discussed whether s 271(2) Criminal Code should be left to the jury – whether the failure to direct on s 271(2) Criminal Code constituted a miscarriage of justice

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

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited

COUNSEL:

P Callaghan SC, with B P Dighton, for the appellant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant, Matthew Richard Colin Beetham, was convicted after a four day trial on 17 January 2014 of doing grievous bodily harm to Anthony David Bird on 23 June 2011 at Townsville. He appealed against his conviction contending that the learned trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to s 271(2) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). At the appeal hearing on 7 March 2014, this Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, and stated it would give its reasons for those orders later. What follows are my reasons for joining in those orders.

The evidence at trial

The following evidence was led at trial. The appellant was a repeat customer of the trailer parts business managed by the complainant which, in early…

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 Beetham

Details

AGLC: R v Beetham [2014] QCA 131
Case: [2014] QCA 131
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Beetham, the appellant was appealing against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, pursuant to s 271(1) of the Criminal Code. The case originated from an altercation between the appellant and the complainant, who had a business relationship involving unpaid and unreturned parts. The complainant alleged that the appellant punched him, causing injury, while the appellant claimed self-defence under s 271(2) of the Criminal Code. The appellant's version was corroborated by other witnesses but contradicted by the complainant's testimony.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the possibility of self-defence under s 271(2) constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court examined whether this omission amounted to a material procedural error that affected the fairness of the trial. The court also considered whether the misdirection or non-direction was significant enough to warrant setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial.

The court found that the trial judge's omission to direct the jury on self-defence under s 271(2) was a significant procedural error. This omission prevented the jury from properly considering the appellant's defence of self-defence, which was supported by other witnesses. The court concluded that this error constituted a miscarriage of justice and that the conviction could not stand. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.

The court's final orders were delivered ex tempore on 7 March 2014. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellant's right to a fair trial was upheld. This decision underscored the importance of properly directing juries on all relevant legal defences in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 7 March 2014:

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 Beetham [2014] QCA 131
PARTIES:	R v BEETHAM, Matthew Richard Colin (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 17 of 2014 DC No 348 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore 7 March 2014 Reasons delivered Friday 6 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each agreeing as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore on 7 March 2014: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The conviction is set aside. 3. A retrial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was a repeat customer of the business managed by the complainant – where the business supplied parts which were neither paid for nor returned – where the complainant phoned the appellant to discuss the payment or return of the parts and a heated argument developed – where the complainant gave evidence that the appellant punched him with his right closed fist on the left side of his jaw – where the appellant gave evidence that the complainant threw a punch which the appellant was able to duck and only then did he punch the complainant – where the appellant's account was supported by all eyewitnesses other than the complainant and raised s 271(2) Criminal Code – where the trial judge directed the jury only in terms of s 271(1) Criminal Code – where neither counsel at trial nor the judge discussed whether s 271(2) Criminal Code should be left to the jury – whether the failure to direct on s 271(2) Criminal Code constituted a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 271(1), s 271(2) Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan SC, with B P Dighton, for the appellant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent