R v Dales

Case [2011] QCA 315

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dales [2011] QCA 315

PARTIES:

R
v
DALES, Christopher John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 83 of 2011
SC No 11 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 September 2011

JUDGES:

Muir JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal against conviction of doing grievous bodily harm with intent allowed;

2.  Conviction and verdict set aside;

3.  Verdict of acquittal entered on charge of doing grievous bodily harm with intent;

4.  Proceeding remitted to the District Court for determination according to law whether the appellant should be convicted of doing grievous bodily harm, and if so, for sentencing.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the prosecutor made comments about a witness in closing address – where the appellant argues it was an unanticipated attack on credit after the close of the prosecution case – where the appellant argues that the trial was rendered unfair and that there was a miscarriage of justice – whether the comments could have improperly influenced the jury – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where inferences that there were closer relationships than the evidence suggested between the appellant and two witnesses were open on the evidence – where the evidence allowed room for reasonable doubt that the appellant aimed the weapon at the complainant and caused it to discharge before slamming it on the vanity bench – where there is limited scope to set aside a verdict and substitute a verdict of guilty of a lesser charge pursuant to s 668F(2) of the Criminal Code – whether s 668F(2) is applicable in the instant case – whether the matter should be remitted to a primary court

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 320, s 579, s 668E(1), s 668F(2)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered
R v Collins, ex parte Attorney-General [1996] 1 Qd R 631; [1994] QCA 467, cited
R v DAX[2010] QCA 221, considered
R v Jones [1993] 1 Qd R 676; [1992] QCA 173, cited
R v Melling & Baldwin[2010] QCA 307, cited
R v PAH[2008] QCA 265, considered
R v Smith (2007) 179 A Crim R 453; [2007] QCA 447, considered
SKA v The Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 571; [2011] HCA 13, cited
Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603; [2000] HCA 43, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley SC for the appellant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public…

Continue reading R v Dales

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dales [2011] QCA 315
Case
[2011] QCA 315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dales, the appellant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but appealed on the grounds of a perceived miscarriage of justice and the unreasonableness of the verdict. The appeal centred on comments made by the prosecutor during the closing address, which the appellant claimed were an unanticipated attack on a witness's credibility after the prosecution had closed its case. The appellant argued that these comments improperly influenced the jury, leading to an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the prosecutor's comments constituted an unanticipated attack on the witness's credibility and whether these comments could have improperly influenced the jury. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted to a primary court for a new determination. The court had to consider whether the scope of substituting a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, pursuant to s 668F(2) of the Criminal Code, was applicable in this case.

The court found that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute an unanticipated attack on the witness's credibility but acknowledged that the evidence allowed for inferences that there were closer relationships between the appellant and two witnesses than the evidence suggested. Additionally, the court determined that there was room for reasonable doubt regarding whether the appellant aimed the weapon at the complainant and caused it to discharge. The court held that the scope to set aside the verdict and substitute a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge was limited, and s 668F(2) did not apply in this instance. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction of causing grievous bodily harm with intent was allowed, the conviction and verdict were set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was entered on that charge. The matter was remitted to the District Court for further determination on whether the appellant should be convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, and if so, for sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction of doing grievous bodily harm with intent allowed;

2. Conviction and verdict set aside;

3. Verdict of acquittal entered on charge of doing grievous bodily harm with intent;

4. Proceeding remitted to the District Court for determination according to law whether the appellant should be convicted of doing grievous bodily harm, and if so, for sentencing.

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.