R v Black - [2007] VSCA 61

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 349 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
PHILLIPP GEORGE BLACK

No. 350 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
PHILLIP DAMIEN WATTS

No. 351 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
STEVEN JOHN BLACK

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN AP, EAMES JA and KELLAM AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	12^th and 13^th February 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5^th April 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 61

---

Criminal law – Jury questions – Trial judge failed to inform counsel of terms of questions – Convictions set aside.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr O P Holdenson, QC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant (Phillipp George Black)	Mr M R Simon	Power and Bennett
For the Applicant (Phillip Damien Watts)	Mr C G Mandy	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Applicant (Steven John Black)	Mr C B Boyce	Leanne Warren and Assocs

BUCHANAN AP:

The applicants were arraigned in the County Court and pleaded not guilty to a presentment containing a number of counts arising from an alleged invasion of a house and offences said to have been committed against the occupants of the house.

Phillipp Black is 25 years old. His brother Steven is 22 years old. Phillip Watts is 37 years old. The Crown case was that the applicants and two other men entered a house in Horsham, pushing past two young men who had come to the door. A number of young men and one young woman were in the house. Watts brandished a pistol. Phillipp Black carried a baseball bat.

Watts told the occupants of the house to get on the floor. They obeyed him. Watts said he would kill them all if they did not give him everything they had. One or all of the invaders gathered mobile telephones, wallets and money. Watts hit one of the occupants, Clinton Fisher, with a baseball bat on the hands, arms and legs and also stomped on his head. Phillipp Black hit Clinton Fisher with a baseball bat. Fisher sustained bruising, cuts and swelling. Another occupant, Warren Van Braam, was hit on the side of the head with a wooden object and was pushed from behind so that he hit the edge of a table with the corner of his eye. Van Braam was kicked in the back of the head with a chair. He sustained bruising to his head and back.

A young man, Troy Potter, arrived at the house as the invaders were leaving. Watts and Steven Black grabbed him and pushed him against a wall. He was addressed by name and told that the attackers knew where he lived and that if he went to the police he would be found.

The applicants were charged with one count of aggravated burglary and a number of counts of attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, threat to inflict serious injury, intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury. There were 22 counts in all.

At the conclusion of the…

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 Black

Details

AGLC: R v Black [2007] VSCA 61
Case: [2007] VSCA 61
Decision Date: 5 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Black, the appellant was convicted of serious criminal offences and appealed against his convictions. The appeal was based on the trial judge's failure to properly inform counsel of the terms of questions that the jury had asked during the trial. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to adequately inform counsel of the questions posed by the jury amounted to a significant procedural error that warranted setting aside the convictions. The court needed to determine if such an error could be considered a miscarriage of justice under the common law.

The High Court held that the trial judge's failure to properly inform counsel of the jury's questions was indeed a significant procedural error. The court reasoned that the trial judge has a duty to ensure that counsel are fully apprised of all communications from the jury to avoid any potential prejudice or misunderstanding. This duty is critical to maintaining the fairness and integrity of the trial process. Consequently, the court found that the error was substantial enough to constitute a miscarriage of justice, and therefore set aside the appellant's convictions.

Given the court's decision to set aside the convictions, the appellant's convictions were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for a new trial. This outcome underscores the importance of proper communication between the trial judge and counsel, particularly when dealing with jury communications, to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Orders