R v Boyce - [1993] QCA 115

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 1 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Boyce]

T H E Q U E E N

- v -

RODNEY LOUIS BOYCE

Appellant

The President
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Derrington

Judgment delivered 02/04/93
Separate Reasons by the President, McPherson JA and Derrington

J. All agreeing in the order.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Summing up - Whether judge's views improperly influenced jury - Whether miscarriage of justice.

Counsel:	Mr J. Parker for the appellant Mr P. Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs. Bennet and Philp as town agents for Hoolihan and Associates for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date(s):	19/03/93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 1 of 1993

Brisbane
Before The President

Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Derrington

[R. v. Boyce]

T H E Q U E E N

- v -

RODNEY LOUIS BOYCE

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 02/04/93 balance that it was unfair. There were a number of matters of complaint, namely:

The circumstances are set out in the reasons for judgment

(i)	a considerably more detailed discussion of the prosecution case than the defence case;
(ii)	favourable comment, so far as comment was made, upon the credibility of prosecution evidence;

of Derrington J. and I need not repeat them.
It is regrettable that the trial judge conducted the trial
in a manner which permitted criticism to be made of his
impartiality.
His Honour obviously considered that the appellant
deliberately attempted on two occasions to influence the jury
by inadmissible evidence. It was for his Honour to exclude the
evidence from the jury's consideration if he was satisfied that
it ought not have been given but it was for the jury - and
should have been left entirely to it - to decide what, if any,
conclusion adverse to the appellant was to be drawn from what
occurred.
Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that his Honour's comments
during the appellant's evidence had any significant impact on
the jury and they were not the subject of objection by the
appellant's counsel at the time. Further, his Honour's comments
concluded with a remark that it was for the jury to "make up
their own mind". In the circumstances, the episodes during the
appellant's evidence are of significance only as background to
the summing-up.

(iii) unfavourable comment upon the credibility of the
appellant.

An objective perusal of the summing-up suggests that the jury would have concluded that the trial judge disbelieved the appellant and considered him guilty. On the other hand, there was no application for redirections which was not granted and the jury was plainly told, on more than one occasion, that it was for them to determine who to believe and whether or not to convict the appellant.

Although the summing-up might have been considerably better expressed and would probably…

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 Boyce

Details

AGLC: R v Boyce [1993] QCA 115
Case: [1993] QCA 115
Decision Date: 2/04/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Boyce is an appeal by Rodney Louis Boyce against his conviction for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed with an offensive weapon. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the appeal number C.A. No. 1 of 1993. The primary legal issues involved in the appeal were whether the summing up by the trial judge was unfair and whether it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the summing up was biased against him, particularly in terms of the trial judge's comments on the credibility of the witnesses and the focus on the prosecution's case.

The Court of Appeal found that while the summing up could have been better expressed, it was unlikely that it had any significant impact on the jury's decision. The court noted that the trial judge had made it clear that the decision on credibility and guilt lay with the jury. Despite some criticisms of the trial judge's conduct during the trial, the court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the appeal should be dismissed. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused as the appellant had abandoned it during the hearing.

The reasoning of the court emphasized the importance of a balanced and fair summing up, but also highlighted that the trial judge has a wide discretion in how they present the evidence and arguments to the jury. The court found that while some comments by the trial judge could have been avoided, they did not amount to a miscarriage of justice when considered in the context of the entire summing up. The court also noted that the appellant's counsel had not objected to the summing up during the trial, which was a factor in determining the fairness of the trial.

Orders