R v Dykstra

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dykstra [2011] QCA 175

PARTIES:

R
v
DYKSTRA, Benjamin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 33 of 2011
DC No 44 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction allowed;

2. Conviction set aside;
3. New trial ordered;

4. Order that a warrant issue for the arrest of the appellant, to lie in the registry for 14 days or until further order.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was convicted of doing grievous bodily harm – whether verdict of guilty is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where appellant argues that the trial judge misdirected the jury on lies, flight, and accident – whether the trial judge should have given an Edwards direction

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where appellant argued that prosecutor’s address to the jury used personal, insulting terms – whether this amounted to a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23, s 668E

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
R v Bridgman (1980) 24 SASR 278, cited
R v Condon[2010] QCA 117, cited
R v Hay and Lindsay [1968] Qd R 459, cited
R v M [1991] 2 Qd R 68, considered
R v Melrose [1989] 1 Qd R 572, cited
R v Power & Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407; [1996] SASC 5653, cited
R v Roulston [1976] 2 NZLR 644, considered
R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, applied
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the appellant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connolly Suthers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA and the orders proposed by her Honour.

MARGARET WILSON AJA: Benjamin Dykstra was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Carl Darwin Crossman. He has appealed against the conviction.

He relies on five grounds of appeal:

(a) lie: that the trial judge misdirected the jury that an out of court denial that he had committed the offence was…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Dykstra, appealed against a conviction for doing grievous bodily harm, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence presented at the trial. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on issues related to lies, flight, and accident, and that the prosecutor's address to the jury contained personal and insulting terms, which the appellant claimed amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the evidence presented at the trial and concluded that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The court found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on certain points of law, specifically regarding lies, flight, and accident. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the prosecutor's address to the jury contained personal and insulting terms but found that this did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court was of the view that the misdirection by the trial judge was sufficient to warrant a new trial.

As a result of the findings, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The court also issued a warrant for the arrest of the appellant, to lie in the registry for 14 days or until further order. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that trial judges provide proper directions to the jury and the consequences of misdirection on the outcome of a trial.

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed;

2. Conviction set aside;

3. New trial ordered;

4. Order that a warrant issue for the arrest of the appellant, to lie in the registry for 14 days or until further order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Dykstra [2011] QCA 175
PARTIES:	R v DYKSTRA, Benjamin (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 33 of 2011 DC No 44 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2011
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction allowed; 2. Conviction set aside; 3. New trial ordered; 4. Order that a warrant issue for the arrest of the appellant, to lie in the registry for 14 days or until further order.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was convicted of doing grievous bodily harm – whether verdict of guilty is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where appellant argues that the trial judge misdirected the jury on lies, flight, and accident – whether the trial judge should have given an Edwards direction APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where appellant argued that prosecutor’s address to the jury used personal, insulting terms – whether this amounted to a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23, s 668E Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, considered M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied R v Bridgman (1980) 24 SASR 278, cited R v Condon[2010] QCA 117, cited R v Hay and Lindsay [1968] Qd R 459, cited R v M [1991] 2 Qd R 68, considered R v Melrose [1989] 1 Qd R 572, cited R v Power & Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407; [1996] SASC 5653, cited R v Roulston [1976] 2 NZLR 644, considered R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, applied Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the appellant R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Connolly Suthers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent