R v Craig - [1998] QCA 277

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 277
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 139 of 1998

Brisbane

[R. v. Craig]

THE QUEEN

DOUGLAS KEITH CRAIG

(Applicant) Appellant
de Jersey C.J.
Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.A.

Judgment delivered 15 September 1998

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ALLOWED. SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW VARIED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER FOR IMPRISONMENT OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS IN RESPECT OF THE SUSPENDED SENTENCE AND IN LIEU THEREOF IMPOSE A SENTENCE OF NINE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW OTHERWISE CONFIRMED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL - Appeal against conviction and sentence - accident, self-defence - whether Trial Judge properly directed on accident - self-defence - whether separate defences of self- defence under ss.271(1), 271(2) and 272 should have been put to jury - responsibility of defence counsel to indicate if more than one of such sections are relied on - inherent undesirability of obscuring a viable defence of self-defence with other theoretical possibilities - failure of Crown to call witness subsequently called by the defence - Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 distinguished - sentencing - totality principle.

Criminal Code ss 23, 271(1), 271(2) and 272
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 s.147(3)(a)(2)

Counsel:	Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant/appellant Mr C Chowdury for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	23 July 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY CJ

Judgment delivered 15 September 1998

I agree with the orders proposed by Thomas JA and with his reasons. I also agree with the additional observations of Pincus JA.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 15 September 1998

I have read the reasons of Thomas J.A. One of the points pressed by Mr Hamlyn-Harris on behalf of the appellant was that, he contended, the verdict was unsafe. Counsel referred us to the treatment of this topic in Jones (1997) 72 A.L.J.R. 78, wherein the principal judgment, one finds discussion of the tests for determining whether a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. The judges referred at 85 to M (1994) 181 C.L.R. 487 at 493, in which it was said that the test was whether the court thought that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Jones, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had misapprehended the test, saying (for example) that the question is whether "the court has or the jury must have had . . . a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt" (Jones at 86). It appears that nothing other than adherence to the precise test enunciated will do; that is, to repeat, whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, of guilt. If it was so open then, according to Jones and earlier cases, the convictions are…

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 Craig

Details

AGLC: R v Craig [1998] QCA 277
Case: [1998] QCA 277
Decision Date: 15/09/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Craig involved an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, Douglas Keith Craig. Craig was convicted of grievous bodily harm, an offence that occurred when he used a sickle to fight with Noel Peters, causing serious injuries. Craig’s defences were that the injury was accidental or, alternatively, that it was in self-defence. The Court of Appeal examined several grounds of appeal, including the safety of the jury’s verdict and the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions regarding the defences of accident and self-defence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Craig guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also addressed the sentence imposed on Craig, which included serving an additional eighteen months of a suspended sentence from a previous offence. The Court found that the sentencing judge did not have sufficient information to properly assess the seriousness of the original offences, leading to an improper activation of the suspended sentence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, allowed the appeal, and reduced the imprisonment term of the suspended sentence to nine months, while confirming the three-year sentence for grievous bodily harm. The overall sentence was thus reduced to four years and four months, taking into account the totality principle.

Orders