R v Charles - [2013] QCA 362

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Charles [2013] QCA 362

PARTIES:

R
v
CHARLES, Angela Toni
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 299 of 2012
DC No 1120 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2013

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

Dismiss the appeal against conviction.1.

Grant leave to appeal against sentence.2.

Allow the appeal against sentence.3.

Vacate the sentence imposed by the primary judge.4.

In lieu thereof, it is ordered that:5.

on the count of wilful damage, the appellant perform 20 hours community service (to be served concurrently);a.

on the count of unlawful grievous bodily harm, the appellant perform 240 hours of community service (to be served concurrently); andb.

the appellant comply with the requirements of s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.c.

Declare that the time to be served under the community service orders imposed above has been satisfied by the time already served by way of community service under the sentence imposed on 12 October 2012, and that the requirements under s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 have been met.6.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant, in the course of driving, became involved in an altercation with another driver – where the complainant’s spectacles were damaged – where the complainant’s left ring finger was bent backwards by the appellant causing ligament damage that had to be repaired by a surgical procedure – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant challenges the conviction on the ground of miscarriage of justice – where the appellant contends the evidence against her is inconsistent and insufficient – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant challenges the conviction on the ground of incompetence of trial counsel – where the appellant contends that trial counsel failed to cross-examine and adduce evidence as instructed – where the appellant contends that trial counsel was unprepared, nervous and inattentive – where the appellant contends that trial counsel failed to use evidence and follow lines of argument as instructed – whether the conduct of defence counsel deprived the appellant of a fair trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one…

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 Charles

Details

AGLC: R v Charles [2013] QCA 362
Case: [2013] QCA 362
Decision Date: 6 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Charles, was convicted by a jury of one count of wilful damage and one count of doing grievous bodily harm. Charles appealed against her conviction and sentence, claiming a miscarriage of justice and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the court of criminal appeal. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the evidence against Charles was inconsistent and insufficient, whether her trial counsel's conduct deprived her of a fair trial, whether the primary judge's conduct exhibited bias, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence presented at the trial and concluded that it was consistent and sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court found that the trial counsel's conduct did not deprive Charles of a fair trial, as the counsel's performance did not fall below the standard expected of a competent lawyer. The court also found no evidence of bias on the part of the primary judge. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account Charles' age, criminal history, mental health issues, and the potential impact of imprisonment on her career as a commercial pilot.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction but granted leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the original sentence was vacated. In its place, the court ordered Charles to perform 20 hours of community service for the wilful damage charge and 240 hours of community service for the grievous bodily harm charge, to be served concurrently. Additionally, Charles was required to comply with the provisions of section 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The court declared that the time already served by Charles through community service under the original sentence satisfied the new community service orders, and the requirements under section 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 had been met.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the appeal against conviction.1.

Grant leave to appeal against sentence.2.

Allow the appeal against sentence.3.

Vacate the sentence imposed by the primary judge.4.

In lieu thereof, it is ordered that:5.

on the count of wilful damage, the appellant perform 20 hours community service (to be served concurrently);a.

on the count of unlawful grievous bodily harm, the appellant perform 240 hours of community service (to be served concurrently); andb.

the appellant comply with the requirements of s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.c.

Declare that the time to be served under the community service orders imposed above has been satisfied by the time already served by way of community service under the sentence imposed on 12 October 2012, and that the requirements under s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 have been met.6.

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 Charles [2013] QCA 362
PARTIES:	R v CHARLES, Angela Toni (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 299 of 2012 DC No 1120 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 December 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 November 2013
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Dismiss the appeal against conviction.1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.2. Allow the appeal against sentence.3. Vacate the sentence imposed by the primary judge.4. In lieu thereof, it is ordered that:5. on the count of wilful damage, the appellant perform 20 hours community service (to be served concurrently);a. on the count of unlawful grievous bodily harm, the appellant perform 240 hours of community service (to be served concurrently); andb. *the appellant comply with the requirements of s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992.*c. Declare that the time to be served under the community service orders imposed above has been satisfied by the time already served by way of community service under the sentence imposed on 12 October 2012, and that the requirements under s 103(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992 have been met.6.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant, in the course of driving, became involved in an altercation with another driver – where the complainant’s spectacles were damaged – where the complainant’s left ring finger was bent backwards by the appellant causing ligament damage that had to be repaired by a surgical procedure – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant challenges the conviction on the ground of miscarriage of justice – where the appellant contends the evidence against her is inconsistent and insufficient – whether there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant challenges the conviction on the ground of incompetence of trial counsel – where the appellant contends that trial counsel failed to cross-examine and adduce evidence as instructed – where the appellant contends that trial counsel was unprepared, nervous and inattentive – where the appellant contends that trial counsel failed to use evidence and follow lines of argument as instructed – whether the conduct of defence counsel deprived the appellant of a fair trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one…