R v Collins - [2005] QCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Collins [2005] QCA 172

PARTIES:

R
v
COLLINS, Gilbert James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 388 of 2004
DC No 216 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL – where appellant convicted after trial of grievous bodily harm – where complainant de facto partner – where prosecution case circumstantial – where both appellant and complainant had been drinking and arguing on night offence occurred – where complainant could not recall how received injuries due to intoxication – where complainant gave evidence that regularly bashed by appellant when he was drunk – where evidence of yelling, screaming and sounds consistent with punching – where complainant's injuries observed following day – where complainant's blood found on appellant's shoes – where blood found in bedroom where complainant and appellant slept – where medical evidence indicated explanations for complainant's injuries other than a blow to the head were unlikely – where inconsistencies in prosecution witness's recollection of appellant's statements – where inconsistencies explored by defence counsel and referred to in summing up – where defence case fairly summarised by trial judge – whether verdict of jury unreasonable or insupportable – whether appeal should be allowed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGANST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted after trial of doing grievous bodily harm – where sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after two years with an operational period of five years – where sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment after pleas of guilty to one count of wilful damage and three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm – where sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm intended to reflect applicant's criminality for all offences – where aged between 32 and 34 at time of offences – where general history of violence towards others and previous violence towards complainant – where two offences committed in breach of domestic violence orders – where four offences committed whilst on bail – where no indication of remorse or insight into offending – where served 10 months of pre-trial custody that could not be declared as time served under s 161 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where trial judge indicated reduced sentence imposed to take account of pre-trial custody – whether sentence manifestly excessive

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
R v Creagh [1995] QCA…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2005] QCA 172
Case: [2005] QCA 172
Decision Date: 27 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Collins, was convicted of grievous bodily harm against his de facto partner. The prosecution's case was primarily circumstantial, relying on the complainant's testimony that she was regularly assaulted by Collins when he was intoxicated, and the presence of her blood on Collins' shoes and in the bedroom they shared. The trial judge allowed the appeal against the conviction on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, but the Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Crown argued that the jury's verdict was reasonable given the evidence of intoxication, the complainant's history of being assaulted by Collins, and the medical evidence indicating that the complainant's injuries were unlikely to have been caused by anything other than a blow to the head.

The Court of Appeal held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, and dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The Court found that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, particularly given the complainant's history of being assaulted by Collins when he was drunk, and the presence of her blood on Collins' shoes and in the bedroom they shared. The Court also noted that the inconsistencies in the prosecution witness's testimony were explored by defence counsel and referred to in the summing up, and that the defence case was fairly summarised by the trial judge.

The Court also considered the Crown's appeal against the sentence, which was a suspended sentence of four years imprisonment with an operational period of five years, and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for other offences. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's history of violence towards others and previous violence towards the complainant, the breach of domestic violence orders, and the fact that two of the offences were committed while on bail. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Collins [2005] QCA 172
PARTIES:	R v COLLINS, Gilbert James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 388 of 2004 DC No 216 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Kingaroy
DELIVERED ON:	27 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL – where appellant convicted after trial of grievous bodily harm – where complainant de facto partner – where prosecution case circumstantial – where both appellant and complainant had been drinking and arguing on night offence occurred – where complainant could not recall how received injuries due to intoxication – where complainant gave evidence that regularly bashed by appellant when he was drunk – where evidence of yelling, screaming and sounds consistent with punching – where complainant's injuries observed following day – where complainant's blood found on appellant's shoes – where blood found in bedroom where complainant and appellant slept – where medical evidence indicated explanations for complainant's injuries other than a blow to the head were unlikely – where inconsistencies in prosecution witness's recollection of appellant's statements – where inconsistencies explored by defence counsel and referred to in summing up – where defence case fairly summarised by trial judge – whether verdict of jury unreasonable or insupportable – whether appeal should be allowed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGANST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted after trial of doing grievous bodily harm – where sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after two years with an operational period of five years – where sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment after pleas of guilty to one count of wilful damage and three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm – where sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm intended to reflect applicant's criminality for all offences – where aged between 32 and 34 at time of offences – where general history of violence towards others and previous violence towards complainant – where two offences committed in breach of domestic violence orders – where four offences committed whilst on bail – where no indication of remorse or insight into offending – where served 10 months of pre-trial custody that could not be declared as time served under s 161 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where trial judge indicated reduced sentence imposed to take account of pre-trial custody – whether sentence manifestly excessive M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Creagh [1995] QCA…