R v Brown - [2020] QCA 69

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2020] QCA 69

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Lyndon James
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 299 of 2018
DC No 186 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 26 October 2018; Date of Sentence: 29 October 2018 (McGill SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 September 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where a group of men including the appellant attended at the unit complex where the complainants resided, armed with objects – where the appellant struck the first complainant with a spanner on the side of her head and on her left shoulder – where the appellant and the other men then attacked the second complainant using the objects with which they were armed – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed (count 1) and an offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 2) – where there were some inconsistencies in eyewitness evidence identifying the appellant as one of the attackers – whether the jury’s verdicts were “unsafe and unsatisfactory” or “unreasonable”

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – where a police officer said in his evidence that he and other officers were at the Probation and Parole Office in Ipswich where the appellant had an appointment to attend when they arrested the appellant – where counsel for the appellant applied for the jury to be discharged on the ground that the evidence implied that the appellant had previously been placed on probation or had been in prison and was on parole – where the trial judge declined to discharge the jury – where the trial judge directed the jury to ignore the evidence as it was irrelevant and inadmissible and not to speculate about why the appellant was at the Probation and Parole Office – whether the identified risk of prejudice as a result of the improperly adduced evidence could sufficiently be addressed by appropriate directions – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to 10 years and two months’ imprisonment on count 2 and to a concurrent term of four years’ imprisonment on count 1 – where the sentence on count 2 attracted the automatic declaration that it was a serious violent offence – where the evidence showed the attack was an exercise in deliberate and…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2020] QCA 69
Case: [2020] QCA 69
Decision Date: 15 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence for offences including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The appeals were heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The key issues for the court were whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or unsafe, whether the trial judge properly managed an instance of improperly adduced evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence, despite some inconsistencies in eyewitness evidence. The court held that the trial judge properly managed the improperly adduced evidence by directing the jury to ignore it and not to speculate about its relevance. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions sufficiently addressed the risk of prejudice. The court also found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Brown [2020] QCA 69
PARTIES:	R v BROWN, Lyndon James (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 299 of 2018 DC No 186 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 26 October 2018; Date of Sentence: 29 October 2018 (McGill SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 September 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where a group of men including the appellant attended at the unit complex where the complainants resided, armed with objects – where the appellant struck the first complainant with a spanner on the side of her head and on her left shoulder – where the appellant and the other men then attacked the second complainant using the objects with which they were armed – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed (count 1) and an offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 2) – where there were some inconsistencies in eyewitness evidence identifying the appellant as one of the attackers – whether the jury’s verdicts were “unsafe and unsatisfactory” or “unreasonable” CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – DISCHARGE OF JURY – where a police officer said in his evidence that he and other officers were at the Probation and Parole Office in Ipswich where the appellant had an appointment to attend when they arrested the appellant – where counsel for the appellant applied for the jury to be discharged on the ground that the evidence implied that the appellant had previously been placed on probation or had been in prison and was on parole – where the trial judge declined to discharge the jury – where the trial judge directed the jury to ignore the evidence as it was irrelevant and inadmissible and not to speculate about why the appellant was at the Probation and Parole Office – whether the identified risk of prejudice as a result of the improperly adduced evidence could sufficiently be addressed by appropriate directions – whether there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to 10 years and two months’ imprisonment on count 2 and to a concurrent term of four years’ imprisonment on count 1 – where the sentence on count 2 attracted the automatic declaration that it was a serious violent offence – where the evidence showed the attack was an exercise in deliberate and…