R v Bell

[2004] QCA 219

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Bell [2004] QCA 219
PARTIES:	R v BELL, Darryl Roy (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 92 of 2004 DC No 142 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	2 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 June 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against convictions dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant charged with 10 offences on indictment – whether learned trial judge adequately informed jury of which acts of the appellant were referable to which charges – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – ADDRESSES – FINAL ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR CROWN – WHERE ACCUSED UNREPRESENTED – where unrepresented accused did not give evidence – where prosecutor erroneously made final address to jury – whether this error led to a miscarriage of justice
R v Bellino & Conte [1993] Qd R 521, cited R v Meehan [1919] St R Qd 119, cited R v Walsh & Bunting [1902] St R Qd 6, cited R v Wilkie [1997] QCA 337; CA No 255 of 1997, 30 September 1997, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Williams JA for dismissing the appeal against conviction.

2. WILLIAMS JA: The appellant appeals against his conviction on two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. He defended himself at trial and appeared in person (by video link) on the hearing of the appeal. He attached to the Notice of Appeal a four page document which contains various complaints about the trial but does not contain precisely defined grounds of appeal. He also faxed to the court 16 pages of written outline in support of his appeal; again it is difficult to extract from that document precise grounds of appeal.

3. There were 10 counts on the indictment before the jury. In each count the woman who had previously been in a relationship with the appellant was named as the complainant. The relevant events occurred on three separate dates: 25 August 2002, 7 November 2002, and 14 November 2002. The charges can be summarised as follows:

1.	25 August 2002 - assault occasioning bodily harm.
2.	7 November 2002:

(i)      unlawful assault;

(ii)      threatening to do an injury with intent to prevent the victim from giving evidence.

3.