R v Brannigan; R v Green - [2009] QCA 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brannigan; R v Green [2009] QCA 271

PARTIES:

R
v
BRANNIGAN, Joshua James
(appellant/applicant)

R
v
GREEN, Shannon David
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 327 of 2008
CA No 338 of 2008
SC No 1149 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2008

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 327 of 2008:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

In CA No 338 of 2008:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant Brannigan convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm as aiding appellant Green – where appellant Brannigan argued that jury could not be satisfied that he

knew appellant Green was armed with knife that Green used to stab complainant – whether verdict unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where complainants gave evidence against appellants – where appellant Green challenged reliability of complainants' evidence – whether jury entitled to rely upon complainants' evidence – whether verdict unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY – OTHER OFFENCES INVOLVING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY – GENERALLY – where appellants convicted of unlawfully striking pursuant to s 317(f) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where striking must be committed with "any kind of projectile or anything else capable of achieving the intention" – where appellant Brannigan struck complainant with a baseball bat – whether striking with baseball bat fell within terms of offence in
s 317(f)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where offence involved appellant stabbing complainant – where appellant Green claimed stabbing not a willed act – where trial judge directed jury with respect to willed acts – whether directions to jury insufficient

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDER – where appellants convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – where offence declared to be a serious violent offence – where appellant Green argued particular offence was not "beyond the norm" for offence of that kind – whether sentencing judge erred in making declaration

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 7, s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Brannigan; R v Green and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] QCA 271
Decision Date: 11 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Brannigan and Green, appealed against their convictions in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Brannigan was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm as an aider and abettor of Green. Green was convicted of unlawfully striking a complainant with a baseball bat. The case centred on the reasonableness of the jury's verdicts, considering the evidence presented. Brannigan argued that the jury could not be satisfied that he knew Green was armed with a knife, which Green used to stab the complainant. Green challenged the reliability of the complainants' evidence, arguing that the jury was not entitled to rely on it, thus making the verdict unreasonable.

The court examined whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. In relation to Brannigan, the court considered whether the jury could reasonably infer that Brannigan knew Green was armed with a knife. The court held that the evidence supported a conclusion that Brannigan was aware Green was armed. Regarding Green, the court assessed the reliability of the complainants' evidence. The court found that the jury was entitled to rely on the complainants' evidence, as it was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The court concluded that the verdicts were reasonable, given the evidence.

The court dismissed both appellants' appeals against their convictions. The court found that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence. Additionally, the court refused the appellants' applications for leave to appeal against their sentences. The court confirmed the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants. The appeals were ultimately unsuccessful, affirming the trial court's decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 327 of 2008:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

In CA No 338 of 2008:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Brannigan; R v Green [2009] QCA 271
PARTIES:	R v BRANNIGAN, Joshua James (appellant/applicant) R v GREEN, Shannon David (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 327 of 2008 CA No 338 of 2008 SC No 1149 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2008
JUDGES:	Keane and Muir JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	In CA No 327 of 2008: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused In CA No 338 of 2008: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant Brannigan convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm as aiding appellant Green – where appellant Brannigan argued that jury could not be satisfied that he knew appellant Green was armed with knife that Green used to stab complainant – whether verdict unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where complainants gave evidence against appellants – where appellant Green challenged reliability of complainants' evidence – whether jury entitled to rely upon complainants' evidence – whether verdict unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY – OTHER OFFENCES INVOLVING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY – GENERALLY – where appellants convicted of unlawfully striking pursuant to s 317(f) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where striking must be committed with "any kind of projectile or anything else capable of achieving the intention" – where appellant Brannigan struck complainant with a baseball bat – whether striking with baseball bat fell within terms of offence in s 317(f) CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where offence involved appellant stabbing complainant – where appellant Green claimed stabbing not a willed act – where trial judge directed jury with respect to willed acts – whether directions to jury insufficient CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDER – where appellants convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – where offence declared to be a serious violent offence – where appellant Green argued particular offence was not "beyond the norm" for offence of that kind – whether sentencing judge erred in making declaration Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 7, s…