R v David - [2006] QCA 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v David [2006] QCA 206

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVID, Paul Michael
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 220 of 2005
SC No 620 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where appellant argued before this Court that the jury's verdict was unreasonable - where appellant claimed to have acted in self-defence and questioned reliability of witnesses - whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury acting reasonably to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where learned trial judge gave directions on the issue of how the jury may determine intention - where appellant argued that the jury may, as a very real possibility, have been misled by the learned trial judge's failure to refer to the appellant's evidence in which he denied an intention to kill the complainant - whether the jury would have been led by the directions to disregard the appellant's evidence

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant argued before this Court that the directions to the jury did not adequately address the issue of the appellant's intention if the jury rejected the appellant's case of self-defence - whether the learned trial judge's directions were adequate

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where appellant has criminal history involving drug offences and offences involving personal violence - where this was the third occasion on which the appellant had committed offences involving the use of a knife - where the attack in this instance had been an unprovoked attack in a public place - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

De Gruchy…

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 David

Details

AGLC: R v David [2006] QCA 206
Case: [2006] QCA 206
Decision Date: 9 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v David, the appellant was convicted of one count of attempted murder by a jury. The appeal against the conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence were heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant contended that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, particularly in light of his self-defence claim and the reliability of the witnesses. The appellant further argued that the trial judge's summing up might have misled the jury regarding his evidence on intent, and that the directions did not adequately address the issue of intent if the jury rejected his self-defence claim. Finally, the appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given his criminal history and the nature of the offence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, whether the trial judge's directions to the jury constituted a misdirection or non-direction, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined the evidence presented at trial, the trial judge's summing up, and the overall circumstances of the case to determine if the jury could reasonably have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Additionally, the court assessed the adequacy of the trial judge's directions on intent and whether any misdirection could have influenced the jury's verdict. Finally, the court considered the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offence to evaluate the proportionality of the sentence.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, as the evidence allowed for the possibility that the appellant intended to commit the offence. The court noted that the jury was properly directed on the principles of self-defence and could reasonably reject the appellant's claim. The court further held that the trial judge's summing up, when considered as a whole, did not mislead the jury regarding the appellant's evidence on intent. The court concluded that the directions were adequate and that any potential misdirection did not affect the outcome of the trial. Finally, the court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.

CITATION:	R v David [2006] QCA 206
PARTIES:	R v DAVID, Paul Michael (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 220 of 2005 SC No 620 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 May 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused 2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where appellant argued before this Court that the jury's verdict was unreasonable - where appellant claimed to have acted in self-defence and questioned reliability of witnesses - whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury acting reasonably to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where learned trial judge gave directions on the issue of how the jury may determine intention - where appellant argued that the jury may, as a very real possibility, have been misled by the learned trial judge's failure to refer to the appellant's evidence in which he denied an intention to kill the complainant - whether the jury would have been led by the directions to disregard the appellant's evidence CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - where appellant argued before this Court that the directions to the jury did not adequately address the issue of the appellant's intention if the jury rejected the appellant's case of self-defence - whether the learned trial judge's directions were adequate CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of one count of attempted murder after trial by jury - where appellant has criminal history involving drug offences and offences involving personal violence - where this was the third occasion on which the appellant had committed offences involving the use of a knife - where the attack in this instance had been an unprovoked attack in a public place - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive De Gruchy…