R v Faumunia - [2005] QDC 93

[2005] QDC 093

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE RACKEMANN

THE QUEEN

ARTHUR FAALII FAUMUINA

SOUTHPORT

..DATE 10/03/2005

EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS

RULING

HIS HONOUR: In this matter a question has arisen as to

the proper direction to the jury with respect to section 23 of

the Code.

In this case the evidence is that the accused punched

Mr Anfield resulting in Mr Anfield falling backwards and

hitting his head and incurring a brain injury, which, it is

common ground, satisfies the definition of grievous bodily

harm.

It is common ground that the jury should be directed in

relation to section 23 and, in particular, as to the

foreseeability of the event which may have occurred by

accident.

The dispute is as to the definition of the event for the

purposes of that direction.

There are, of course, cases which distinguish between what is

the act and what is the event, but that is not central to the

dispute between the parties in this case. Rather, the dispute

relates to whether the event, which must be relevantly

foreseeable, is the injury, which in this case constitutes the

grievous bodily harm, or whether what must be foreseeable is

simply that any type of grievous bodily harm might result from

the act. In that regard I was referred to some decisions of

the Court of Appeal.

In the case of R v Taiters 1997 1 QdR 333 it was said at page

335 that:

"It should now be taken that in the construction of section 23
the reference to 'act' is to 'some physical action apart from
its consequences' and the reference to 'event' in the context
of occurring by accident is a reference to 'the consequences
of the act."

If the Crown's contention were correct, that is, that the

relevant consequence is just some form of grievous bodily

harm, then the event in question, being the consequences of

the act, in this case punching, could be related to injuries

which have nothing to do with the facts of this case. So

that, for example, it might be foreseeable that, as a result

of punching a person in these circumstances, a person would

suffer an injury such as a broken jaw or some other type of

injury which would fit within the definition of grievous

bodily harm.

The defence, on the other hand, contends that the event, being

the consequences of the act of punching, must be related to the

injury which constituted the grievous bodily harm in the

circumstances.

In Taiters case reference was made to Kaporonovski's case as

an example. In relation to Kaporonovski's case it was said:

"The thrusting of the glass by the accused was the act and the
injury to the victim's eye which constituted grievous bodily
harm was the event."

That formulation appears to be consistent with the contention

of the defendant, although the Crown points to a latter

passage on the same page in which it is said:

"In cases when grievous bodily harm is charged…

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 Faumunia

Details

AGLC: R v Faumunia [2005] QDC 93
Case: [2005] QDC 93
Decision Date: 10/03/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Faumunia involved the accused, Arthur Faalii Faumunia, who was charged with punching Mr Anfield, causing him to fall and sustain a brain injury that amounted to grievous bodily harm. The District Court was tasked with determining the proper jury direction in relation to section 23 of the Criminal Code concerning the foreseeability of the event that led to the injury. The primary legal issue was whether the event that must be foreseeable under section 23 is the specific injury suffered or merely the possibility of any grievous bodily harm resulting from the act. The court examined various cases to clarify the interpretation of section 23, including R v Taiters, R v Camm, and R v Watt. The court concluded that the event in question is the specific injury amounting to grievous bodily harm, but it does not require the precise understanding of the injury's nature or causation. The court ruled that the event was the brain injury that constituted grievous bodily harm, and it was sufficient that the possibility of such harm was reasonably foreseeable.

The court found that the interpretation of section 23 in R v Taiters, which distinguishes between the act and the consequences of the act, was relevant. The court noted that the event, in the context of section 23, refers to the consequences of the act. The court rejected the Crown's argument that any form of grievous bodily harm was sufficient, emphasizing that the event must be related to the specific injury in the case. The decision in R v Camm supported this interpretation, where the court defined the event as the injury to the complainant's hip, which constituted grievous bodily harm. Similarly, in R v Watt, the court indicated that the event was the happening of the relevant injury amounting to grievous bodily harm. The court in Faumunia adopted this reasoning, holding that the event in question is the brain injury that constitutes grievous bodily harm, and the jury must be directed accordingly.

Orders