R v D'Arcy - [2001] QCA 20

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA

MULLINS J

[2001] QCA 020

CA No 214 of 2000

THE QUEEN

RODNEY JAMES D'ARCY	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 07/02/2001
JUDGMENT
07022001 T4/NK17 M/T COA16/2001

THOMAS JA: The appellant was convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm. He was acquitted on a further count of aggravated burglary. The basis of the appeal is that the acquittal on the latter count is inconsistent with conviction on the former and that it should be inferred that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

At the relevant time three men were living in the house of a fisherman, Mr Prudnicki, who was absent at sea. The complainant had permission to sleep in Prudnicki's room. The evidence shows that a day or so before the relevant events, the complainant had flirted with the next door female resident, resulting in the appellant telling the complainant that he was very jealous and that the complainant should stay away from her. The three men had been drinking during the day when the warning was given. There had also been an argument concerning whether the complainant should remain in the premises. The appellant had told the complainant to leave but the complainant had said it was up to Prudnicki to decide if he should go.

Eventually the complainant went to sleep in his bedroom at some time between seven and nine p.m. He saw fit to put a wooden wedge underneath the door. Sometime later, probably around 11 p.m., he heard some loud bangs on the bedroom door. On the third bang the door opened and the appellant ran into the room.

According to the complainant's evidence, the appellant had a

2 JUDGMENT

07022001 T4/NK17 M/T COA16/2001

pinch bar in his hand. The complainant said that he partly got up from the mattress and raised his right forearm. He was then struck by the pinch bar in the forearm and also on the back of

the head. He suffered a fractured ulna and a laceration to the
skull. The injury to the ulna was described by the medical
witness as a classic injury consistent with a defensive
manoeuvre by someone being struck a direct blow.

A struggle ensued. The two men moved out onto the balcony and after a time the complainant, by which time he was in possession of the pinch bar, pushed the appellant over the front balcony. The struggle on the landing was witnessed by neighbours.

The defence put at trial by the appellant's counsel, by means of cross-examination, was that there had been an argument about whether the complainant should stay at the house; that the complainant, at all times, had the pinch bar; that during an argument the complainant had pushed the appellant off the balcony; that nothing had happened in the bedroom at all; and that the appellant had never had possession of the pinch bar.

The appellant did not give or call evidence.

The ingredients of the aggravated burglary count were explained by the…

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 D'Arcy

Details

AGLC: R v D'Arcy [2001] QCA 20
Case: [2001] QCA 20
Decision Date: 7/02/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Rodney James D'Arcy, the appellant was convicted by a jury of grievous bodily harm but acquitted on a count of aggravated burglary. The appeal focuses on the inconsistency between these verdicts, arguing that the acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge is inconsistent with the conviction for grievous bodily harm and that it should be inferred that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolve around the consistency of the jury's verdicts and the rationality of their decision-making process. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the jury's acquittal on the charge of aggravated burglary, despite convicting the appellant of grievous bodily harm, was a rational and reasonable outcome. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate and whether the jury could have reasonably reached the verdicts it did.

The court found that the jury's verdicts, while seemingly inconsistent, were not irrational. The court acknowledged that the jury might have had reasonable doubts about the appellant's intent when he entered the room, which could explain the acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge. Furthermore, the court noted that the jury might have had doubts about whether the appellant actually broke into the room, which also could account for the acquittal. Given these considerations, the court concluded that there was a rational basis for the jury's verdicts and that the acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge did not necessarily render the conviction for grievous bodily harm unreasonable. The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders