R v Byrne and Poid - [2006] QCA 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Byrne and Poid [2006] QCA 241

PARTIES:

R
v
BYRNE, Shane Thomas Troy
(appellant)

R
v
POID, Cherise Nasuaiu
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 304 of 2005
CA No 307 of 2005
DC No 42 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered 5 May 2006
Reasons delivered 23 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - TESTS - WHETHER JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED SAME VERDICT - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - where appellants were jointly charged with and convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm - where appellants were in a de facto relationship - where complainant was involved in a scuffle with appellants and sustained 12 stab wounds although there was conflicting evidence as to whether appellant Byrne alone or appellant Poid alone or both had stabbed him - where appellant Poid admitted to a friend that appellant Byrne had stabbed complainant twice and that she had stabbed him a further eight times - whether trial judge erred in directing jury that evidence of this conversation established appellant Poid's liability under either s 7(1)(b) or (c) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) - whether judge erred in failing to leave for jury's consideration statutory defence of defence of dwelling in relation to appellant Byrne - whether judge erred in failing to direct jury or in giving flawed directions to jury in relation to statutory defences of self-defence and aiding in self-defence - whether judge erred in failing to direct jury that they must be satisfied that appellants' various admissions were true before acting on them

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 267, s 271, s 273

Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, applied

R v Sherrington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105; CA No 239 and CA No 245 of 2000, 6 April 2001, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for appellant Byrne
A J Glynn SC for appellant Poid
C W Heaton for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: The appellants, Shane Byrne and Cherise Poid, were jointly charged with unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Tobias Prior at Proserpine on 17 February 2005. They were each convicted after a four day trial in the Bowen District Court. They each appealed against their conviction. On 5 May 2006 this Court ordered that in each case the appeal against conviction was allowed, the conviction quashed and a retrial ordered. These are my reasons for those orders.

Byrne contends that the learned trial judge erred, first, in failing to leave s 267 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) for consideration by 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 Byrne and Poid

Details

AGLC: R v Byrne and Poid [2006] QCA 241
Case: [2006] QCA 241
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellants, Byrne and Poid, against their convictions for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The appellants were in a de facto relationship and were jointly charged with the offence. The complainant, who was involved in a scuffle with the appellants, sustained 12 stab wounds. There was conflicting evidence as to who stabbed the complainant. The appellants argued that there were several errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, which led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury regarding the evidence of a conversation between the appellants, whether the judge failed to leave for the jury's consideration the statutory defence of defence of dwelling in relation to the appellant Byrne, whether the judge erred in failing to direct the jury or in giving flawed directions to the jury in relation to the statutory defences of self-defence and aiding in self-defence, and whether the judge erred in failing to direct the jury that they must be satisfied that the appellants' various admissions were true before acting on them.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the evidence of the conversation between the appellants. The court held that the judge was correct in directing the jury that the evidence established the appellant Poid's liability under either s 7(1)(b) or (c) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The court also found that the judge did not err in failing to leave for the jury's consideration the statutory defence of defence of dwelling in relation to the appellant Byrne, as there was no evidence to support this defence. The court held that the judge erred in failing to direct the jury or in giving flawed directions to the jury in relation to the statutory defences of self-defence and aiding in self-defence. The court found that the judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and may have led to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court held that the judge erred in failing to direct the jury that they must be satisfied that the appellants' various admissions were true before acting on them.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions of the appellants were quashed. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.

Orders