R v Edwards - [2009] QCA 122

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2009] QCA 122

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Randy Wayne
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 296 of 2008
DC No 15 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, White and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant acquitted of one count of common assault – whether verdict was unreasonable in view of inadequacies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where jury referred to a “Guide to Jury Deliberations” booklet during deliberations – whether contents of the booklet contradicted directions given by the learned trial judge – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where part of the learned trial judge’s direction to the jury in summing up contained a triple negative expression – whether the learned trial judge misdirected the jury – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)

Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4, cited
Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203; [2002] HCA 2, cited
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied

R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138, cited
Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6, cited

COUNSEL:

R W Griffith for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lee Turnbull & Co for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

cMURDO P:M The appeal against conviction should be dismissed for the reasons given by White J.

WHITE J: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court at Townsville on 16 October 2008 of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” in respect of a count of common assault. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months wholly suspended with an operational period of two years. He appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2009] QCA 122
Case: [2009] QCA 122
Decision Date: 12 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Edwards, appealed against his conviction for one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, while the conviction for one count of common assault was upheld. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable given the evidence presented. The appellant also argued that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the jury's reference to a "Guide to Jury Deliberations" booklet during their deliberations, which allegedly contradicted the trial judge's directions. This argument was dismissed by the Court, which found that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant contended that there was a misdirection by the trial judge during the summing up, which contained a triple negative expression. The Court of Appeal held that this did not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the appellant's conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Edwards [2009] QCA 122
PARTIES:	R v EDWARDS, Randy Wayne (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 296 of 2008 DC No 15 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, White and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant acquitted of one count of common assault – whether verdict was unreasonable in view of inadequacies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where jury referred to a “Guide to Jury Deliberations” booklet during deliberations – whether contents of the booklet contradicted directions given by the learned trial judge – whether there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellant convicted following trial by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where part of the learned trial judge’s direction to the jury in summing up contained a triple negative expression – whether the learned trial judge misdirected the jury – whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice *Criminal Code* 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A) *Chidiac v The Queen* (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4, cited *Conway v The Queen* (2002) 209 CLR 203; [2002] HCA 2, cited *Festa v The Queen* (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72, cited *M v The Queen* (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138, cited Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6, cited
COUNSEL:	R W Griffith for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lee Turnbull & Co for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent