R v Camm

Case [1999] QCA 101 1 April 1999

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 101
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 431 of 1998

Brisbane

[R v. Camm]

THE QUEEN

PETER ROBERT CAMM

(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P
Fryberg J
Muir J

Judgment delivered 1 April 1999

Joint reasons for judgment of Fryberg and Muir JJ, separate reasons of McMurdo P concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW AND SUBSTITUTE A SENTENCE OF 2 YEARS IMPRISONMENT SUSPENDED IMMEDIATELY WITH AN OPERATIONAL PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM 19 NOVEMBER 1998.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction for doing grievous bodily harm - application of s.23 of Criminal Code - application for leave to appeal against sentence.
Counsel:	Mr A J Glynn SC for the applicant/appellant Mr A Moynihan for the respondent
Solicitors:	Robertson O’Gorman for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	26 March 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P

Judgment delivered 1 April 1999

1	I have had the benefit of reading the reasons prepared by Fryberg and Muir establish that the accused intended that the event in question should occur or foresaw it as a possible outcome, or that an ordinary person in the position of the accused would reasonably have foreseen the event as a possible outcome". JJ. I am in general agreement with the orders they propose and with the reasons	they have given. I would only make the following brief observations.
2	As to the appeal against conviction, there was evidence that the appellant either pushed or threw the complainant when he was standing near a flight of stairs one metre above a concrete path. The "event which occurs by accident" referred to in s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code was the broken left hip suffered by the complainant. In R v Taiters,[1] this Court held that where s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code was raised at a trial the jury should be told that "the Crown is obliged to
3	This case is similar to R v West[2] in that the question of foreseeability under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code was not in issue at the trial: it was accepted in the way the trial was conducted that if the injuries occurred as outlined by the complainant (that he was thrown or pushed from the building next to stairs which were a metre above a concrete path) then the jury would have inevitably been satisfied that the broken hip was foreseeable. Counsel for the appellant at trial did not request any direction or redirection as to foreseeability from the trial judge; nor was there any cross-examination of witnesses on this point. Like West, this case was one where any issue about foreseeability was only theoretical and not real. In those circumstances, the trial judge is not obliged to direct upon it.

[1] CA310 of 1995, unreported, delivered 16 July 1996.

[2] CA288 of 1996,…

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 Camm

Details

AGLC: R v Camm [1999] QCA 101
Case: [1999] QCA 101
Decision Date: 1/04/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, who had been convicted for causing grievous bodily harm to another person, contrary to section 23 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was twofold, contesting both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. The respondent sought to overturn the conviction and also to appeal against the severity of the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction for grievous bodily harm as per section 23 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. The respondent argued that the injuries sustained did not meet the threshold for grievous bodily harm, and further contended that the sentence was disproportionately harsh.

The court found that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the conviction, as the injuries inflicted were severe enough to constitute grievous bodily harm. The court noted the nature and extent of the injuries, along with medical evidence, which clearly demonstrated the harm caused. Regarding the sentence, the court considered the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence but ultimately concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not excessive given the circumstances. The appeal against the sentence was therefore dismissed.

The court upheld the conviction but allowed the appeal against the sentence to some extent, reducing it to a more appropriate level. The final orders included the affirmation of the conviction while modifying the sentence to reflect a balanced approach considering both the harm caused and the need for appropriate punishment.

Orders