R v Crossman

Case [2011] QCA 126

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crossman [2011] QCA 126

PARTIES:

R
v
CROSSMAN, Justin Lee
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 292 of 2010
DC No 49 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

17 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser and Chesterman JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2.   Leave to appeal against sentence granted;

3.   Appeal against sentence allowed;

4.   The sentences imposed are varied to the extent of substituting 12 years for 15 years’ imprisonment for the offences of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant argued the trial judge erred by insisting the appellant attend the view – whether the order to attend the view amounted to an error of law – whether the chance of a fair trial was lost by the prejudice the appellant suffered by reason of the jury seeing the appellant confined in the prison van – whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR REDIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury with respect to the definition of “grievous bodily harm” – whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant also pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful wounding and one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each of the counts of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent with a declaration that the appellant had been convicted of serious violent offences – where the appellant was further sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for each of the unlawful wounding and infliction of grievous bodily harm – where all sentences were ordered to be served concurrently – where the appellant argued the trial judge failed to take into account the pleas of guilty for the unlawful wounding and grievous bodily harm counts – where the appellant argued the sentences imposed in total were manifestly excessive – whether the sentences were manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 8, s 271, s 302(1)(b), s 617, s 668E(1), s 668E(1A)
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s 157(1)
Jury Act 1995…

Continue reading R v Crossman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crossman [2011] QCA 126
Case
[2011] QCA 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of two counts of intentionally doing grievous bodily harm and subsequently appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The court was required to consider whether the trial judge's insistence that the appellant attend the view amounted to an error of law, and whether this prejudiced the appellant to the extent that a fair trial was impossible. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the definition of "grievous bodily harm" constituted a misdirection that led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to assess whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's pleas of guilty to other related charges.

The court found that the trial judge's insistence on the appellant attending the view did not constitute an error of law, nor did it prejudice the appellant to the extent of denying a fair trial. The court also concluded that there was no misdirection by the trial judge in defining "grievous bodily harm" for the jury. The court further determined that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; however, the court did find that the sentences for the grievous bodily harm charges were excessive and varied them to 12 years' imprisonment each.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences for the grievous bodily harm offences were reduced to 12 years' imprisonment each. The court ordered that the appellant's sentences be served concurrently, with the altered sentences taking effect in place of the original 15-year terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted;

3. Appeal against sentence allowed;

4. The sentences imposed are varied to the extent of substituting 12 years for 15 years’ imprisonment for the offences of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm.

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.