R v Cameron - [2001] ACTSC 57

R v ROBERT DAVID HUGH CAMERON [2001] ACTSC 57 (15 June 2001)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – counts of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm –whether accused holding a schooner glass when he struck the complainant – whether injury to complainant’s eye caused by such glass – whether accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm or was reckless as to possibility of such harm – whether self-defence excluded – no issue of principle.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68C

DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
R vPerks (1986) 41 SASR 335
R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282
R v Chan-Fook (1994) 99 CR App R 147
Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645
Saler and Klingbiel [1945] SASR 171

No. SCC 252 of 1999

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 15 June 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 252 of 1999
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

v
ROBERT DAVID HUGH CAMERON

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  15 June 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the first count of the indictment, namely that on the 4^th day of September 1999 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on Darren McPherson.

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the second count of the indictment, namely that on the 4^th day of September 1999 at Canberra aforesaid he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Darren McPherson.

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the third count of the indictment, namely that on the 4^th day of September 1999 at Canberra aforesaid he assaulted Darren McPherson thereby occasioning to him actual bodily harm.

The accused was arraigned before me upon the following counts:

(a)that on the 4^th day of September 1999 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on Darren McPherson;
(b)that on that day he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Darren McPherson; and
(c)that on that day he assaulted Darren McPherson thereby occasioning to him actual bodily harm.

Upon his arraignment he pleaded not guilty to each count.

As the accused elected to be tried by Judge alone I am bound by the requirements of s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933. That section is in the following terms:

1     A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as the verdict of the jury.
2     The judgment in criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone shall include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.
3     In criminal proceedings tried…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2001] ACTSC 57
Case: [2001] ACTSC 57
Decision Date: 15 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cameron involved the defendant, Cameron, who was charged with multiple counts of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard by the court, which needed to determine whether the accused was holding a schooner glass when he struck the complainant, whether the injury to the complainant's eye was caused by the schooner glass, and whether the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm or was reckless as to the possibility of such harm. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether self-defence was a valid defence in this instance. The court was not presented with any significant issues of principle in this case.

The legal issues before the court were primarily factual in nature. The accused's guilt or innocence depended on whether he was holding a schooner glass when he struck the complainant, whether the injury to the complainant's eye was caused by the schooner glass, and whether the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm or was reckless as to the possibility of such harm. The court also needed to consider whether self-defence was a valid defence in this instance.

In determining the outcome of the case, the court examined the evidence presented and found that the accused was indeed holding a schooner glass when he struck the complainant. Furthermore, the injury to the complainant's eye was caused by the schooner glass. The court also found that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm or was reckless as to the possibility of such harm. The court determined that self-defence was not a valid defence in this instance.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, with a non-parole period of three years and three months. The court also ordered the accused to pay compensation to the complainant for the injuries suffered.

Orders