R v Doyle - [2010] QCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Doyle [2010] QCA 204

PARTIES:

R
v
DOYLE, William Vincent
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 293 of 2009
DC No 182 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2010

JUDGE:

Holmes JA and Cullinane and McMeekin JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant found guilty after a trial of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where complainant assaulted twice during a melee involving numerous people – where the injury that provided for the grievous bodily harm charge was a fracture to the right side of the complainant's jaw – where that injury occurred in the first assault – where the complainant could not identify his assailant – where witnesses called to identify the accused as the assailant in the first assault – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant delivered the punch in the first attack that caused the subject injury

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – WARNING ADVISABLE OR REQUIRED – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – GENERALLY – where the prosecution relied on identification evidence to link the appellant to the punch that cause the subject injury – where two witnesses identified the appellant in the dock – where the witnesses had previous knowledge of the appellant – whether jury directions in relation to the dock identification of the appellant should have been included in the summing-up – whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury about the concerns inherent in identification evidence

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395; [1981] HCA 17, considered
Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314; [1988] HCA 47, cited
Davies and Cody v The Queen (1937) 57 CLR 170; [1937] HCA 27, cited
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, applied
R v B [1999] QCA 105, cited
R v Lam & Ors (2001) A Crim R 272; [2001] QCA 279, cited
R v PAH [2008] QCA 265, applied
R v Savage [1994] QCA 20, considered
R v Zullo [1993] 2 Qd R 572; [1993] QCA 208, cited

COUNSEL:

A. Collins for the appellant
M. Cowen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and the order he proposes.

CULLINANE J: I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and the order he proposes.

McMEEKIN J: The appellant was convicted, after a trial, of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to one Shane Jeffrey Upton on 29 September…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2010] QCA 204
Case: [2010] QCA 204
Decision Date: 6 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Doyle, the appellant was found guilty of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm on a complainant, following a trial. The injury in question, a fracture to the right side of the complainant's jaw, occurred during the first of two assaults on the complainant during a large-scale melee. The complainant was unable to identify his assailant, and the prosecution sought to establish the appellant's involvement through witness testimony. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person who delivered the punch causing the injury.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the assailant in the first assault. This hinged on the reliability of the identification evidence provided by the witnesses, who had prior knowledge of the appellant. A secondary issue was whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury about the inherent risks in identification evidence, particularly regarding the dock identification of the appellant.

The court found that the jury was properly directed on the evaluation of identification evidence and that the trial judge's warnings were sufficient. The court emphasised that the jury was not obliged to accept the identification evidence if it was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the assailant. The court held that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The appellant remained convicted of the offence of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 Doyle [2010] QCA 204
PARTIES:	R v DOYLE, William Vincent (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 293 of 2009 DC No 182 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2010
JUDGE:	Holmes JA and Cullinane and McMeekin JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant found guilty after a trial of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where complainant assaulted twice during a melee involving numerous people – where the injury that provided for the grievous bodily harm charge was a fracture to the right side of the complainant's jaw – where that injury occurred in the first assault – where the complainant could not identify his assailant – where witnesses called to identify the accused as the assailant in the first assault – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant delivered the punch in the first attack that caused the subject injury CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – WARNING ADVISABLE OR REQUIRED – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – GENERALLY – where the prosecution relied on identification evidence to link the appellant to the punch that cause the subject injury – where two witnesses identified the appellant in the dock – where the witnesses had previous knowledge of the appellant – whether jury directions in relation to the dock identification of the appellant should have been included in the summing-up – whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury about the concerns inherent in identification evidence Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395; [1981] HCA 17, considered Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314; [1988] HCA 47, cited Davies and Cody v The Queen (1937) 57 CLR 170; [1937] HCA 27, cited Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, applied R v B [1999] QCA 105, cited R v Lam & Ors (2001) A Crim R 272; [2001] QCA 279, cited R v PAH [2008] QCA 265, applied R v Savage [1994] QCA 20, considered R v Zullo [1993] 2 Qd R 572; [1993] QCA 208, cited
COUNSEL:	A. Collins for the appellant M. Cowen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent