R v Daniel - [2021] ACTSC 64

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Daniel
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 64
Hearing Date(s):	7 September 2020
Decision Date:	4 December 2020
Reasons Date:	19 April 2021
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	The accused is not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The accused is guilty of the statutory alternative, causing grievous bodily harm.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Trial – Trial by judge alone – Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – Whether accused reckless as to grievous bodily harm – Accepted by accused that grievous bodily harm occasioned – Blackwell direction
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 23, 25
Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 184 Supreme Court Act 1933 ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	Blackwell v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 93; 81 NSWLR 119 Byrne v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 31 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 Pattalis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 171 R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333 R v Daniel Byrne [2013] ACTSC 246 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Droudis (No 14) [2016] NSWSC 1550 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v Song (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 148 R v Sutton [2021] ACTSC 37
Texts Cited:	Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Criminal Trial Courts
Bench Book (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2002)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Zane Daniel (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
M Howe (Crown) M Kukulies-Smith (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 39 of 2020
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J
Introduction

1.	This is a judge-alone trial conducted pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) after Zane Daniel (the accused) signed an election to be tried by judge alone on 26 May 2020.
2.	The accused was arraigned on 7 September 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

Directions

Section 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) requires that the judgment in a judge-alone trial include the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which the Court has relied. Section 68C(3) requires that where a warning or direction is required by a Territory law to be given, or a comment to be made, to a jury in proceedings, the Court in a judge-alone trial must take the warning, direction or comment into account when considering its verdict. I approach these statutory obligations in accordance with the statements made in Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 at [6] and [52].

I adopt the following directions, set out by Nield AJ in R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 (Mulcahy), in relation to my role in the present case. The directions have been adopted by Refshauge J in R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 and Mossop J in R v Song…

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 Daniel

Details

AGLC: R v Daniel [2021] ACTSC 64
Case: [2021] ACTSC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zane Daniel was tried in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The prosecution submitted that the accused struck the complainant with significant force to the head, rendering the complainant unconscious and resulting in severe injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence. The court considered the prosecution's case that the accused was reckless as to inflicting grievous bodily harm on the complainant, as per the test for recklessness set out in Blackwell v The Queen. The accused accepted that grievous bodily harm had been inflicted on the complainant but denied that he was reckless. The court found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused realised the possibility of really serious bodily injury occurring. The accused was acquitted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm but found guilty of the statutory alternative of causing grievous bodily harm.

Orders