R v Fergus - [1996] QCA 151

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 151
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 499 of 1995

Brisbane

Before Fitzgerald

Davies JA. Williams J.

[R. v. Fergus]

T H E Q U E E N

CRAIG LESLIE FERGUS

Appellant

Fitzgerald P.
Davies JA.
Williams J.

Judgment delivered : 24/05/1996

Joint judgment of Fitzgerald P. and Davies JA; separate reasons for judgment of Williams J. concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	Conviction - grievous bodily harm - inconsistencies in evidence - verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - self-defence.
Counsel:	A. Rafter for Appellant L. Clare for the Crown
Solicitors:	Dale & Fallu for Appellant Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Hearing date:	21 May 1996

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P. AND DAVIES JA.

Judgment delivered 24/05/1996

The appellant has appealed against his conviction of 17 November 1995 of an offence of doing grievous bodily harm to Allan Philip Jackson, with intent to do grievous bodily harm to him, on 11 February 1995 at Ipswich. The indictment also charged the appellant with murdering Stephen Jeffrey Gray at that time and place, but the jury could not agree on a verdict in relation to that count and the appellant was acquitted when he was subsequently retried.

On the night of 11 February 1995, the appellant was at home with Campbell McCorquodale, the person with whom he shared a residence at 17 Beaumaris Street, Bellbird Park. He had previously shared a relationship with a woman, Sharyn Coll, who had also resided at that address but had left there on a number of occasions at the appellant’s request. The last such occasion was about a week earlier. At about 8.30pm on 11 February, Ms Coll arrived at the appellant’s residence with three men, Gray, Jackson and Jeffrey Harold Aust. Different reasons were given for their visit, but it seems likely that the jury would have concluded that the purpose was to punish the appellant for some grievance felt by Ms Coll. After she had criticised and possibly struck the appellant, Gray and perhaps Jackson and Aust commenced to strike him and Gray and the appellant fought. Initially, the fight occurred in a number of rooms in the house, before the appellant and Gray moved downstairs. On the view most favourable to the appellant, he was being badly beaten, and as he and Gray passed through the kitchen on their way downstairs to the yard of the house, he picked up a knife which, he said, he put down the back of his pants. Earlier, when Coll and her companions first arrived, he had picked up a piece of PVC pipe that he kept behind the door, but it seems that he dropped that or it was taken from him, perhaps by Jackson, during the course of the encounter in the house. The appellant and Gray continued to fight in the yard of the house and Gray continued to strike the appellant, who stabbed Gray, who fell to the…

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 Fergus

Details

AGLC: R v Fergus [1996] QCA 151
Case: [1996] QCA 151
Decision Date: 24/05/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fergus involved the conviction of the respondent, Fergus, on charges of grievous bodily harm. The dispute arose from an incident in which the respondent inflicted serious injuries upon another individual, leading to criminal proceedings. The matter was brought before the relevant court to determine the validity of the conviction.

The court was tasked with assessing whether the prosecution had established Fergus's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies in the evidence provided. This included evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the forensic evidence presented. The central legal issue revolved around whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof in light of the discrepancies in the testimonies and evidence.

The court examined the testimonies and evidence presented in detail, weighing the inconsistencies against the overall body of evidence. It concluded that, despite the inconsistencies, the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the totality of the evidence, which, when considered as a whole, pointed conclusively to the respondent's involvement in the grievous bodily harm incident.

Orders