R v Bennett - [1998] QCA 393

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 393
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 211 of 1998
C.A. No. 212 of 1998
C.A. No. 213 of 1998
Brisbane
[R v. Bennett & Ors]
T H E Q U E E N
v.
GEORGE EDWARD BENNETT, JOHN LESLIE BENNETT
and LINDSAY JAMES BENNETT
Appellants
McMurdo P.
McPherson J.A.
Muir J.

Judgment delivered 24 November 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.
APPEAL BY JOHN LESLEY BENNETT IN C.A. NO. 212 OF 1998 AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED. CONVICTION AND VERDICT SET ASIDE. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL ENTERED.
APPEALS BY GEORGE EDWARD BENNETT IN C.A. NO. 211 OF 1998 AND BY LINDSAY JAMES BENNETT IN C.A. NO. 213 OF 1998 AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - Grievous bodily harm - Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - Inconsistencies in evidence of Crown witnesses - Whether convictions inconsistent with acquittal of co-accused.

CRIMINAL LAW - Directions to jury - Going armed in public without lawful occasion in such a manner as to cause fear - Whether trial judge misdirected jury with respect to meaning of “without lawful occasion” - Use that accused could make of statements of co-accused in recorded police interviews.

Criminal Code ss. 7, 69; Statute of Northampton 1328 (U.K.); Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (U.K.); R. v. Anderson [1910] Q.W.N. 19; Dearnley v. The King [1947] St.R.Qd. 51; R. v. Smith [1914] 2 I.R. 190
Counsel: Mr S. Hamlyn-Harris for appellants George Bennett and
Lindsay Bennett
The appellant John Bennett appeared on his own behalf
Mr D. Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants George Bennett and
Lindsay Bennett
The appellant John Bennett appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 3 November 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P.
Judgment delivered 24 November 1998

I have had the pleasure of reading the learned and elegantly expressed reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. I agree that for the reasons given by him the appeals of George Edward Bennett (C.A. No. 211 of 1998) and Lindsay James Bennett (C.A. No. 213 of 1998) should be dismissed and the appeal by John Leslie Bennett (C.A. No. 212 of 1998) should be allowed. I agree that John Leslie Bennett’s conviction and verdict should be set aside and instead a verdict of acquittal entered.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.
Judgment delivered 24 November 1998
The appellants in this appeal against their convictions at a trial in the District Court at Longreach are Mr John Bennett and his two sons George and Lindsay. Jack Bennett, as he is known, was arraigned on one count of doing grievous bodily harm to Barry Facer (count 1) and another of doing bodily harm to his wife Mrs Sherrie Facer (count 2). He was acquitted of those charges, but was found guilty of the charge in a third count against him (count 3) that he went armed in…

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 Bennett

Details

AGLC: R v Bennett [1998] QCA 393
Case: [1998] QCA 393
Decision Date: 24/11/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bennett involves an appeal against convictions in the District Court at Longreach. The appellants are Jack Bennett, along with his two sons, George Edward Bennett and Lindsay James Bennett. Jack Bennett was acquitted of charges related to grievous bodily harm and causing bodily harm but was found guilty of going armed in public without lawful occasion. George and Lindsay Bennett were each found guilty of grievous bodily harm to Barry Facer. The charges stemmed from an incident on 26 June 1997, where a dispute over unpaid wages led to a violent confrontation between the Bennetts and the Facers at the Bennetts’ home in Barcaldine. Barry Facer was injured during the altercation.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, given the inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the Crown witnesses. The defence argued that the verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittal of Jack Bennett, who was present during the incident and should have been equally culpable if his sons were guilty. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of George and Lindsay Bennett and whether the verdicts were consistent with the acquittal of Jack Bennett.

The court found that the evidence presented was indeed inconsistent and that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The reasoning focused on the lack of clarity and reliability in the witnesses' accounts, especially considering the acquittal of Jack Bennett. The inconsistency between the acquittal of Jack and the convictions of his sons raised questions about the fairness and accuracy of the verdicts. Consequently, the appeal of John Leslie Bennett was allowed, and his conviction and verdict were set aside, with a verdict of acquittal entered in his place. The appeals of George Edward Bennett and Lindsay James Bennett were dismissed.

In summary, the court concluded that the verdicts against George and Lindsay Bennett were not supported by reliable evidence, and the inconsistency with Jack Bennett’s acquittal rendered the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The final orders were to set aside the conviction and verdict of John Leslie Bennett, entering a verdict of acquittal in his place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

PHERSON J MUIR J

I have had the pleasure of reading the learned and elegantly expressed reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. I agree that for the reasons given by him the appeals of George Edward Bennett (C.A. No. 211 of 1998) and Lindsay James Bennett (C.A. No. 213 of 1998) should be dismissed and the appeal by John Leslie Bennett (C.A. No. 212 of 1998) should be allowed. I agree that John Leslie Bennett’s conviction and verdict should be set aside and instead a verdict of acquittal entered. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Mc A. Judgment delivered 24 November 1998 The appellants in this appeal against their convictions at a trial in the District Court at Longreach are Mr John Bennett and his two sons George and Lindsay. Jack Bennett, as he is known, was arraigned on one count of doing grievous bodily harm to Barry Facer (count 1) and another of doing bodily harm to his wife Mrs Sherrie Facer (count 2). He was acquitted of those charges, but was found guilty of the charge in a third count against him (count 3) that he went armed in public without lawful occasion in such a manner as to cause fear to Barry Facer. George Bennett and Lindsay Bennett were each found guilty of a single count charging the doing of grievous bodily harm to Barry Facer. All of the charges arose out of an incident on 26 June 1997 at 1 Gidyea Street, Barcaldine, where Jack Bennett (then aged 63) was living with his wife and three sons, George (aged 18) and Lindsay (aged 16), and a younger son Sam who was in no way involved in the incident. On the afternoon of that day the complainant Barry Facer was driving a Ford truck from Rockhampton to Winton, when he made a pre-arranged call at the Bennetts’ home in Barcaldine. With Barry were his wife Mrs Sherrie Facer, their daughter Katie aged 11, and a man named Ronald Coleman. They were invited by Jack Bennett to come in for a cup of tea. The conversation that followed concerned a claim for unpaid wages that Lindsay Bennett believed Barry Facer owed him for doing work. The discussion became heated when Mrs Facer told Lindsay to tell his parents the truth about the matter, and then “all hell broke loose ... Jack just went mad, he wanted a gun”. Jack Bennett claimed she had called Lindsay a liar, and he told the Facers to get out. They left the house and went out into the yard, where the Ford truck was parked. There a fight took place, in the course of which Barry Facer was injured. A shot was fired, and the incident came to an end when the Facers succeeded in driving away. As so often happens on occasions like this, the evidence of the witnesses was confused and, in some important respects, it was in conflict. On appeal, Mr Hamlyn-Harris, who appeared for George and Lindsay Bennett on the appeal, helpfully provided a detailed outline identifying such of the evidence as appeared not to be in dispute. It was accepted as correct by Mr Meredith for the Crown. In the end, only ground 12 in the notice of appeal was relied on by those two appellants. It is that the verdicts were and are unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PHERSON J, MUIR J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 393
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 211 of 1998
C.A. No. 212 of 1998
C.A. No. 213 of 1998
Brisbane [R v. Bennett & Ors]

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Grievous bodily harm - Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - Inconsistencies in evidence of Crown witnesses - Whether convictions inconsistent with acquittal of co-accused.
CRIMINAL LAW - Directions to jury - Going armed in public without lawful occasion in such a manner as to cause fear - Whether trial judge misdirected jury with respect to meaning of “without lawful occasion” - Use that accused could make of statements of co-accused in recorded police interviews.
Criminal Code ss. 7, 69; Statute of Northampton 1328 (U.K.); Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (U.K.); R. v. Anderson [1910] Q.W.N. 19; Dearnley v. The King [1947] St.R.Qd. 51; R. v. Smith [1914] 2 I.R. 190
Counsel:	Mr S. Hamlyn-Harris for appellants George Bennett and Lindsay Bennett The appellant John Bennett appeared on his own behalf Mr D. Meredith for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants George Bennett and Lindsay Bennett The appellant John Bennett appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	3 November 1998