R v Buckley; R v Ghattas - [2014] QCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Buckley; R v Ghattas [2014] QCA 98

PARTIES:

In Appeal No 8 of 2014:

R
v
BUCKLEY, Karlie Elizabeth
(appellant/applicant)

In Appeal No 33 of 2014:

R
v
GHATTAS, John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 8 of 2014
CA No 33 of 2014
DC No 62 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 April 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In Appeal No 8 of 2014:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.2.

Appeal against sentence allowed.3.

Sentence varied by ordering that the term of two years imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of seven months, and the offender must not within a period of two years to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.commit another offence punishable by imprisonment 4.

In Appeal No 33 of 2014:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant, Buckley, had arranged for three men to accompany her to her ex-partner’s house to retrieve her children who were being held beyond the time allowed under a court order – where one of the men in her company forced entry into the house – where Buckley’s ex-partner was later assaulted by two of the men after he ran from the house– where Buckley was convicted of burglary by break, in company and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company based upon section 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt a common intention to assault the appellant’s ex‑partner

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant, Ghattas, was charged, as a principal offender, with burglary by break, in company with intent to assault and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company – where there was evidence that Ghattas had actually struck the complainant whilst in company with another person – whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to assault

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant’s, Ghattas’, interview with police was admitted – where it was argued that the interview consisted of improper and unfair cross-examination and argument – where the comments implicit in the questions carried the authority of a police officer – where the appellant was not legally represented at trial – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the admission of the interview

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW…

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 Buckley; R v Ghattas 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: [2014] QCA 98
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Buckley and R v Ghattas, the appellants, Buckley and Ghattas, appealed their convictions and sentences. Buckley was convicted of burglary by break, in company, and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company, while Ghattas was convicted of burglary by break, in company with intent to assault, and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt a common intention to assault in Buckley's case and an intention to assault in Ghattas's case. Additionally, Ghattas's appeal included a claim that the admission of his police interview amounted to a miscarriage of justice due to improper and unfair cross-examination and argument. Buckley's appeal also included a challenge to the adequacy of her sentence.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite intent for both appellants. For Buckley, the court held that the actions of the men accompanying her, particularly the forced entry and subsequent assault, demonstrated a common intention to assault her ex-partner. In Ghattas's case, the court concluded that the evidence, including Ghattas's own admission of striking the complainant, was enough to prove an intention to assault. Regarding the claim of a miscarriage of justice due to the admission of Ghattas's police interview, the court found that the circumstances did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the interview was conducted fairly and the absence of legal representation did not prejudice the appellant. Finally, concerning Buckley's sentence, the court held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive given the context of the offending and Buckley's antecedents. The sentence was varied to a suspension after serving seven months, with a condition to avoid further offending to avoid serving the suspended term.

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction for both appellants but allowed Buckley's appeal against her sentence. The sentence was varied to reflect the court's assessment of the appropriate punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 8 of 2014:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.2.

Appeal against sentence allowed.3.

Sentence varied by ordering that the term of two years imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of seven months, and the offender must not within a period of two years to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.commit another offence punishable by imprisonment 4.

In Appeal No 33 of 2014:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

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 Buckley; R v Ghattas [2014] QCA 98
PARTIES:	In Appeal No 8 of 2014: R v BUCKLEY, Karlie Elizabeth (appellant/applicant) In Appeal No 33 of 2014: R v GHATTAS, John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 8 of 2014 CA No 33 of 2014 DC No 62 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bowen
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 April 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	In Appeal No 8 of 2014: Appeal against conviction dismissed.1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.2. Appeal against sentence allowed.3. Sentence varied by ordering that the term of two years imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of seven months, and the offender must not within a period of two years to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.commit another offence punishable by imprisonment 4. In Appeal No 33 of 2014: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant, Buckley, had arranged for three men to accompany her to her ex-partner’s house to retrieve her children who were being held beyond the time allowed under a court order – where one of the men in her company forced entry into the house – where Buckley’s ex-partner was later assaulted by two of the men after he ran from the house– where Buckley was convicted of burglary by break, in company and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company based upon section 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt a common intention to assault the appellant’s ex‑partner CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant, Ghattas, was charged, as a principal offender, with burglary by break, in company with intent to assault and assault occasioning bodily harm, in company – where there was evidence that Ghattas had actually struck the complainant whilst in company with another person – whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to assault CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant’s, Ghattas’, interview with police was admitted – where it was argued that the interview consisted of improper and unfair cross-examination and argument – where the comments implicit in the questions carried the authority of a police officer – where the appellant was not legally represented at trial – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the admission of the interview CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW…