R v Edwards

Case [2018] QCA 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2018] QCA 304

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Bradley John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2017
DC No 2255 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 9 October 2017 (Rosengren DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2.   The appeal against the conviction is dismissed.

3.   Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ASSAULT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of grievous bodily harm, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, and one count of wilful damage – where the appellant had attended, during the early hours of the morning, the complainant’s house with others on two occasions – where the appellant, on the first occasion, damaged a motor vehicle in the driveway of a neighbour’s property – where the appellant, on the second occasion, and his associates were involved in a melee with the complainants and their associates – where the appellant was armed with a knife – where the appellant was hit during the melee – where, during that melee, each of the complainants was stabbed – where the appellant was found criminally liable for those stabbings, pursuant to s 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the melee occurred during the early hours of the morning – where witnesses could not identify the person that stabbed either complainant – whether it was reasonably open to the jury, on the evidence, to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt – whether further evidence, sought to be adduced by the appellant, would have altered the jury’s determination

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – whether self-defence, pursuant to s 271(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), was open on the evidence – whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury with respect to the availability of the s 271(1) defence – whether the appellant was denied a fair chance of acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of five years and six months imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving 50 per cent of that sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the applicant’s mitigating and aggravating circumstances – where the applicant lost custody of his young daughter, and his…

Continue reading R v Edwards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Edwards [2018] QCA 304
Case
[2018] QCA 304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Edwards, the appellant appealed against his convictions and sentences for multiple counts of assault and wilful damage. The appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of grievous bodily harm, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, and one count of wilful damage. The events leading to these charges involved the appellant attending a house with others on two separate occasions, during which he damaged a neighbour’s vehicle and subsequently engaged in a physical altercation with the occupants of the house. The appellant was armed with a knife during the latter incident, and both complainants were stabbed. The court was tasked with determining whether the convictions were supported by the evidence and if there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on self-defence.

The primary legal issues were whether the verdicts were unreasonable and whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury on the availability of self-defence. The court examined whether the jury could have reasonably concluded the appellant was the person who stabbed the complainants beyond reasonable doubt, considering the melee’s chaotic nature and the lack of eyewitness identification. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge's omission to direct the jury on self-defence constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence contested the imposition of a five-year and six-month imprisonment term, arguing it was excessive given the appellant's personal circumstances and comparative case authorities.

The court held that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdicts, as it was reasonable to infer the appellant's involvement based on the circumstances and the application of s 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The court found no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on self-defence, as it was not reasonably open to the jury to conclude that the appellant acted in self-defence given the evidence. Furthermore, the court deemed the sentence appropriate, considering the appellant's criminal history and the severity of the offences. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. The appeal against the conviction is dismissed.

3. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant appeals those convictions and seeks leave to appeal his sentences. The grounds of appeal against conviction are: (1) that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported, having regard to the evidence, and (2) that a miscarriage of justice occurred as the trial judge failed to direct the jury on self-defence against an unprovoked assault, in respect of counts 3 and 4. The ground of appeal against sentence, should leave be granted, is that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.Background The appellant was born on 7 August 1986. At the time of all of the offences, he was in a relationship with his female partner who lived at Zillmere. Across the road from her lived Raymond Smith. Smith was living with his partner, Nicole Patterson, his brother, Scott Friend, and another male, Chance Stabe. The offences were all committed at Smith’s residence. The wilful damage count (Count 1) was committed in the early hours of 9 January 2016. A blue vehicle, parked in Smith’s driveway, suffered significant damage after the appellant and two other men were observed at Smith’s residence. The remaining counts on the indictment were committed in the early hours of 10 January 2016. The appellant had attended Smith’s residence with four or five other men. The appellant had in his possession a pocket knife. Smith and other occupants of the house, including Matthew Rosman and Friend went outside Smith’s residence. A melee ensued, during which Rosman and Friend suffered significant injuries. Rosman was stabbed in the chest, resulting in a pneumothorax. Without treatment, it would likely have resulted in death. It represented the first count of grievous bodily harm (Count 2). Friend sustained a skull fracture, a puncture wound to the chest and cuts to his head and body, as well as bruising, constituting the assault occasioning bodily harm count (Count 3). Friend also suffered a deep stab wound to his shoulder, which without treatment would be likely to have resulted in permanent injury, being the other count of grievous bodily harm (Count 4). The Crown case was that the appellant was the principal offender in Counts 1, 3 and 4. The Crown relied on s 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to establish the appellant’s liability for Count 2. The Crown case on that count, was that the appellant and his friends formed a common intention to unlawfully assault the occupants of Smith’s residence and in the prosecution of that unlawful purpose, the grievous bodily harm suffered by Rosman was committed and that offence was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that common purpose.Evidence At approximately 2.00 am on 9 January 2016, Smith heard an engine revving in his street. He observed the appellant driving a red convertible. He asked him to leave the street. The appellant did so by screeching the wheels before returning down the street, forcing Smith to move off the roadway. At about 2.30 or 3.00 am on 9 January 2016, Smith was awoken by banging on his house. The banging sounded like a piece of steel hitting the side of the house. Smith heard three people asking him to come outside and sort it out. He recognised one of the voices as the appellant’s voice. Smith observed the appellant and two other males in his front yard, standing in the middle of the driveway. The appellant was in front of a blue vehicle, parked in Smith’s driveway. Smith immediately decamped, running down the footpath, away from the house. He was only wearing his underwear. The two other men chased him. The appellant remained at Smith’s residence.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Crown case was that the appellant was the principal offender in Counts 1, 3 and 4. The Crown relied on s 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to establish the appellant’s liability for Count 2. The Crown case on that count, was that the appellant and his friends formed a common intention to unlawfully assault the occupants of Smith’s residence and in the prosecution of that unlawful purpose, the grievous bodily harm suffered by Rosman was committed and that offence was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that common purpose.Evidence At approximately 2.00 am on 9 January 2016, Smith heard an engine revving in his street. He observed the appellant driving a red convertible. He asked him to leave the street. The appellant did so by screeching the wheels before returning down the street, forcing Smith to move off the roadway. At about 2.30 or 3.00 am on 9 January 2016, Smith was awoken by banging on his house. The banging sounded like a piece of steel hitting the side of the house. Smith heard three people asking him to come outside and sort it out. He recognised one of the voices as the appellant’s voice. Smith observed the appellant and two other males in his front yard, standing in the middle of the driveway. The appellant was in front of a blue vehicle, parked in Smith’s driveway. Smith immediately decamped, running down the footpath, away from the house. He was only wearing his underwear. The two other men chased him. The appellant remained at Smith’s residence. When Smith returned to his residence, the blue vehicle had significant damage. It did not have that damage when he left his residence. The blue vehicle had smashed windows, as well as damage to the front driver’s side door and the side mirror. The back windscreen had been broken and there was damage to the tail lights. The appellant was not at Smith’s residence at that time. Smith did not know what had happened to the two men who had pursued him down the street. Smith rang his family and the police. In the early hours of 10 January 2016, the appellant and several other males returned to Smith’s residence. Prior to their arrival, Smith received messages from an unknown number, stating they were coming back to sort out what had not been sorted out. Smith had “a fair idea” who was sending those messages.[1] Smith became aware the appellant was at his residence, when he observed four or five people alight from a red commodore and run towards the front entrance of his driveway. The appellant was one of those men.[1]AB 46/22. Smith went outside with Friend, Stabe, Rosman, Patterson and other people who Friend had invited to stay at Smith’s residence. An altercation occurred outside. Smith described a lot of yelling and screaming. Rosman went to run down the driveway but was stabbed in the back of his shoulder. Smith could not say who inflicted the stab wound. Smith did not recall seeing any of the people, including the appellant, carrying anything. Friend also was stabbed in the top of his shoulder. Smith did not see Friend sustain that injury.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.