R v Coomer

[2010] QCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Coomer [2010] QCA 6

PARTIES:

R
v
COOMER, Keith Seymour
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 185 of 2009
DC No 73 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and Margaret Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted by jury of one count of doing grievous bodily harm – where complainant and second witness for the Crown gave several versions of incident – where third witness for the Crown gave version of incident inconsistent with second witness – whether inconsistency rendered third witness' evidence unreliable

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – DEFENCE MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant alleged evidence fit for jury's consideration of defences of accident and provocation – where appellant alleged learned trial judge erred in not directing jury to consider defences – whether learned trial judge so erred

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 23, s 620, s 668E

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166; [2005] HCA 34, cited
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, applied
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20, cited
R v Chai (2002) 187 ALR 436; [2002] HCA 12, cited
R v Drier [2006] QCA 237, cited
R v PAH [2008] QCA 265, cited
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited
Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, distinguished
The Queen v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; [2003] HCA 13, cited
Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant
M R Byrne SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. KEANE JA:  On 23 July 2009 the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of doing grievous bodily harm.  The appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment; 23 July 2010 was fixed as his parole release date.

1. The appellant seeks to appeal against his conviction on two broad grounds:

(a)        that the jury could not have been reasonably satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of discrepancies in the Crown case;

(b)        that the…