R v Daniel Byrne - [2013] ACTSC 246

R v DANIEL BYRNE
[2013] ACTSC 246 (27 November 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against the person - Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm
CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Self defence
CRIMINAL LAW – Criminal procedure – Judge alone trial

Crimes Act1900 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
Blackwell v The Queen [2011] NSW CCA 93
Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 345 of 2011

Judge: Murrell CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 27 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 345 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

DANIEL BYRNE

ORDER

Judge:  Murrell CJ
Date:  27 November 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The accused is guilty of the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Timothy Gerald McCarthy.

Opening Remarks

At about 5:30 am on Sunday 24 July 2011, outside the “Quick and Go” convenience store on the corner of Alinga Street and Northbourne Avenue, Canberra City, the accused punched Timothy Gerald McCarthy (the complainant) once. The complainant fell backwards and struck his head on the concrete paving. The accused was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.

On 18 June 2012, the accused elected in writing to be tried by a judge alone.

An offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm is a contravention of s 20 of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT). It is not an “excluded offence” within the meaning of s 68B (4) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). Section 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) creates the alternative statutory offence of causing grievous bodily harm.

Onus and Standard of Proof

The prosecution has the task of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If I am left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, I must return a verdict of not guilty.

Suspicion must play no part in my function as the judge of the facts. The facts are to be determined on the basis of the evidence, that is, the evidence given by the witnesses and that contained in the exhibits. I must apply my common sense.

As a matter of practical reality, in this trial I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence that, when the accused punched the complainant:

(1)The accused realised the possibility that the punch may cause really serious injury to the complainant, and
(2)He was not acting in self defence.

The Evidence

The following evidence was uncontentious.

At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 18 years old and the complainant was 40 years old.

On Saturday 23 July 2011, the complainant and a flatmate, Mr O’Sullivan, went to the Canberra Civic area to socialise. The men attended two Irish pubs, where the complainant consumed alcohol. At about 11:30 pm, when Mr O’Sullivan last saw the complainant, he was in good spirits and did not appear to…

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 Byrne

Details

AGLC: R v Daniel Byrne [2013] ACTSC 246
Case: [2013] ACTSC 246
Decision Date: 27 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Daniel Byrne, the defendant was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Timothy Gerald McCarthy. The matter was heard by the court without a jury, as it was a judge-alone trial. The incident in question occurred when the defendant, in the course of an altercation with the victim, caused serious injury to Mr McCarthy. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's actions were reckless and whether the defence of self-defence was available to him.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the nature of the defendant's actions and whether they amounted to recklessness. Furthermore, the court considered whether the defendant's actions were justified as self-defence, and if so, whether this defence could negate the recklessness element of the offence. The court had to interpret the statutory provisions concerning grievous bodily harm and self-defence, and apply these to the facts of the case.

The court found that the defendant's actions were indeed reckless, as he engaged in a physical confrontation with the victim, resulting in serious injury. However, the court also examined whether the defendant acted in self-defence. The court held that the defendant's actions, while potentially justified as self-defence in the moment, did not negate the recklessness inherent in the act of causing grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the court determined that the defendant was guilty of the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr McCarthy.

The final orders of the court were that the accused is guilty of the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Timothy Gerald McCarthy. Further proceedings will be required to determine sentencing and any other consequential matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The accused is guilty of the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Timothy Gerald McCarthy.

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.