R v Clark - [2014] QCA 99

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Clark [2014] QCA 99

PARTIES:

R
v
CLARK, Robert Aaron
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 250 of 2013
DC No 99 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.        Appeal allowed.

2.        Set aside the conviction under appeal.

3.       Order that there be a new trial of the appellant on the count on which he was convicted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant had been driving on a wet road – where the appellant had been doing “donuts” – where the appellant lost control of the vehicle and collided with an oncoming vehicle – where the appellant’s passenger and the other driver sustained serious injuries – where the appellant was convicted of dangerously operating a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and sentenced to two years imprisonment – where forensic evidence did not preclude the possibility that directly before the collision the vehicle aquaplaned out of the appellant’s control – where the appellant contended that a defence under s 23(1)(a) Code was engaged – whether the jury was directed with respect to this defence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the jury indicated that they could not agree – where the trial judge provided a “shorter version of the Black direction” – whether the direction departed from the model direction formulated in Black

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where there was evidence indicating possible hypotheses other than the prosecutor’s case – whether upon the whole of the evidence the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWER OF COURT ON APPEAL – whether the discretion to order a new trial ought to be exercised

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b)

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, applied
Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627; [1984] HCA 48, distinguished
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Ellis[2007] QCA 219, cited

COUNSEL:

M C Chowdhury for the appellant
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the orders he proposes.

FRASER JA: I have…

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 Clark

Details

AGLC: R v Clark [2014] QCA 99
Case: [2014] QCA 99
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Clark, appealed against his conviction and sentence for dangerously operating a vehicle causing serious injury. Clark had been driving on a wet road when he lost control of his vehicle and collided with an oncoming car. The passenger in Clark's vehicle and the other driver sustained serious injuries. Clark was convicted of dangerously operating a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the jury directions and the reasonableness of the jury's verdict.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge provided an adequate direction to the jury concerning the defence under s 23(1)(a) of the Code, which pertains to the vehicle aquaplaning out of control. Clark argued that the trial judge's direction did not properly address this defence. The court considered whether the direction provided to the jury was in accordance with the model direction formulated in Black, and whether any misdirection or non-direction could have influenced the jury's decision. Additionally, the court examined whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence presented.

The court found that there was a potential for aquaplaning, which was not precluded by the forensic evidence. This fact could have supported a defence under s 23(1)(a) of the Code. The trial judge's direction to the jury did not adequately address this defence, resulting in a misdirection. The court concluded that the misdirection had the potential to influence the jury's decision, leading to an unsafe verdict. The court also found that the jury's inability to reach a unanimous decision indicated that the verdict was unreasonable. The court exercised its discretion under s 11 of the Criminal Appeals Act to order a new trial.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial for Clark on the count on which he was convicted. The court determined that the misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge, as well as the unreasonableness of the jury's verdict, warranted a new trial to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the conviction under appeal.

3. Order that there be a new trial of the appellant on the count on which he was convicted.

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 Clark [2014] QCA 99
PARTIES:	R v CLARK, Robert Aaron (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 250 of 2013 DC No 99 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the conviction under appeal. 3. Order that there be a new trial of the appellant on the count on which he was convicted.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant had been driving on a wet road – where the appellant had been doing “donuts” – where the appellant lost control of the vehicle and collided with an oncoming vehicle – where the appellant’s passenger and the other driver sustained serious injuries – where the appellant was convicted of dangerously operating a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and sentenced to two years imprisonment – where forensic evidence did not preclude the possibility that directly before the collision the vehicle aquaplaned out of the appellant’s control – where the appellant contended that a defence under s 23(1)(a) Code was engaged – whether the jury was directed with respect to this defence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the jury indicated that they could not agree – where the trial judge provided a “shorter version of the Black direction” – whether the direction departed from the model direction formulated in Black CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where there was evidence indicating possible hypotheses other than the prosecutor’s case – whether upon the whole of the evidence the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWER OF COURT ON APPEAL – whether the discretion to order a new trial ought to be exercised Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b) Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71, applied Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627; [1984] HCA 48, distinguished M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Ellis[2007] QCA 219, cited
COUNSEL:	M C Chowdhury for the appellant G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent