R v Davidson - [2014] QCA 348

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davidson [2014] QCA 348

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVIDSON, Alan
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 301 of 2013
DC No 32 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of assault occasioning bodily harm and grievous bodily harm – where the Crown contended the appellant punched and repeatedly kicked the complainant – where the appellant contended the complainant was aggressive and had a weapon, the assault occasioning bodily harm was done in self defence, and the grievous bodily harm was from the respondent causing herself to fall down stairs – where the appellant seeks to adduce new evidence to show the complainant’s injuries did not amount to grievous bodily harm, and to show that she was an aggressive and regularly intoxicated person – whether having regard to all the evidence, including the new evidence, the guilty verdicts were reasonably open

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where defence counsel informed the trial judge it conceded the complainant’s injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm, and that the issue at trial was how those injuries were caused – where the jury was directed that the parties agreed the injuries were grievous bodily harm – whether the jury was misdirected about an element of grievous bodily harm, causing a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant received a head sentence of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two and a half years – where the appellant argues the trial judge mischaracterised the complainant’s injuries – where the appellant argues the offence is better understood as an excessive response to the complainant’s provocative conduct – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton QC for the appellant/applicant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: The appellant was found guilty by a jury following a three day trial in the District Court of assault occasioning bodily harm (count 1) and grievous bodily harm (count 2). He was sentenced to two years imprisonment on count 1 and five years imprisonment on count 2. A parole eligibility date was fixed on 6 May 2016, after the appellant will have served two and a…

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 Davidson

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson [2014] QCA 348
Case: [2014] QCA 348
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davidson involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction and sentence. Davidson was found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm and grievous bodily harm following a trial. The Crown alleged that Davidson punched and repeatedly kicked the complainant, while Davidson claimed self-defence, alleging that the complainant was aggressive, had a weapon, and that the grievous bodily harm resulted from her falling down the stairs. Davidson sought to introduce new evidence to challenge the severity of the complainant's injuries and to portray the complainant as an aggressive and frequently intoxicated individual. The court was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdicts were reasonably open, considering all the evidence, including the new evidence.

The legal issues in this case centred on the reasonableness of the jury's verdicts in light of the new evidence, as well as the potential misdirection of the jury regarding the severity of the grievous bodily harm. Davidson's defence counsel had informed the trial judge that they conceded the complainant's injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm, and that the issue at trial was how those injuries were caused. The court had to determine if the jury was misdirected about the element of grievous bodily harm, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appeal included a challenge to the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were reasonably open, taking into account all the evidence presented. The court noted that the new evidence did not change the fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant were grievous bodily harm, and the jury's verdicts remained within the realm of reasonable possibility. Regarding the potential misdirection, the court held that the jury was properly directed about the nature of grievous bodily harm, and there was no miscarriage of justice. As for the sentence, the court determined that it was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge's characterisation of the complainant's injuries and the context of the offence were properly considered in determining the sentence.

The court dismissed Davidson's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the jury's verdicts were reasonably open and properly directed, and the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. 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 Davidson [2014] QCA 348
PARTIES:	R v DAVIDSON, Alan (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 301 of 2013 DC No 32 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of assault occasioning bodily harm and grievous bodily harm – where the Crown contended the appellant punched and repeatedly kicked the complainant – where the appellant contended the complainant was aggressive and had a weapon, the assault occasioning bodily harm was done in self defence, and the grievous bodily harm was from the respondent causing herself to fall down stairs – where the appellant seeks to adduce new evidence to show the complainant’s injuries did not amount to grievous bodily harm, and to show that she was an aggressive and regularly intoxicated person – whether having regard to all the evidence, including the new evidence, the guilty verdicts were reasonably open CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where defence counsel informed the trial judge it conceded the complainant’s injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm, and that the issue at trial was how those injuries were caused – where the jury was directed that the parties agreed the injuries were grievous bodily harm – whether the jury was misdirected about an element of grievous bodily harm, causing a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant received a head sentence of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two and a half years – where the appellant argues the trial judge mischaracterised the complainant’s injuries – where the appellant argues the offence is better understood as an excessive response to the complainant’s provocative conduct – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	C W Heaton QC for the appellant/applicant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent