SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Condon [2010] QCA 117
PARTIES:
R
v
CONDON, Christopher Gerard
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 253 of 2009
DC No 114 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
21 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 February 2010
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal against conviction allowed.
2. Conviction set aside.
3. Re-trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – ACCIDENT – EVENT OCCURING BY ACCIDENT OR CHANCE – DIRECTIONS TO JURY – appellant convicted of doing grievous bodily harm – appellant hit complainant – complainant's jaw was broken – trial judge directed jury that defence of accident under s 23 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) is negatived if person in position of appellant would reasonably have foreseen the "event" as a possible outcome of act – trial judge identified "event" as serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm rather than actual injury suffered by complainant – whether a properly instructed jury would inevitably have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that prosecution negated accident under s 23 – whether miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – complainant gave inconsistent statements – complainant's account of events consistent with doctor's evidence and independent unchallenged witness – whether open to a properly instructed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence of doing grievous bodily harm – whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23, s 668E(1)
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 Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, applied
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 citedCOUNSEL:
J Henry for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McMURDO P: The appellant, Christopher Gerard Condon, was convicted in the Townsville District Court on 1 September 2009 of doing grievous bodily harm to the complainant on 1 March 2008. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment with an order that he be released on immediate parole and that he pay $10,000 compensation to the complainant. He appeals only against his conviction. His counsel in this appeal, Mr Henry SC, contends that the primary judge erred in directing the jury on accident (s 23 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)). The judge, Mr Henry submits, erred in identifying "the event" in s 23 as an injury amounting to grievous bodily harm, rather than identifying "the event" as…
Continue reading R v Condon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Condon [2010] QCA 117
- Case
- [2010] QCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the trial judge misdirected the jury by identifying the "event" as the serious injury rather than the actual injury suffered by the complainant. The court found that this misdirection could have led a properly instructed jury to conclude that the appellant would have reasonably foreseen the event as a possible outcome of his act, thereby negating the defence of accident. Additionally, the court considered the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the alignment of the complainant's account with the doctor's evidence and an independent witness. The court concluded that it was open to a properly instructed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence. However, given the misdirection regarding the defence of accident, the verdict was deemed unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against the conviction, set aside the conviction, and ordered a re-trial. This decision underscores the importance of accurately directing juries on legal defences, particularly in cases involving grievous bodily harm and the defence of accident, and highlights the need for careful consideration of all evidence and potential inconsistencies when determining the reasonableness of a verdict.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal against conviction allowed.
2. Conviction set aside.
3. Re-trial ordered.
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.