R v Freeman-Quay (No 1) - [2015] ACTSC 262

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Freeman-Quay (No 1)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 262
Hearing Dates:	25, 26, 27, 28, 29 May and 31 July 2015
DecisionDate:	31 August 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, but guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. Guilty of assault.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judge alone trial – particular offences – offences against the person – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – causing grievous bodily harm – common assault – self defence – intoxication
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 24, 25, 26, 49 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 31, 33(3) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 184 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	Blackwell v The Queen (2011) 81 NSWLR119 Byrne v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 31 Dal Cortivo v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 14 Gibbs v Willis [2013] ACTSC 26 JA v Goldsmith [2004] ACTSC 79 R v McDougall [2011] ACTSC 51 R v Shevlin [2013] ACTSC 88
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Levi Freeman-Quay (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr K Archer (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 5 of 2014; SCC 51 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge that on 21 September 2013 he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Matthew Pridam (the complainant), contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). Pursuant to s 49 the Crimes Act, the accused was charged with the alternative statutory offence of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act.

The accused pleaded guilty to the associated offence that, on 21 September 2013, he assaulted Ray Reynolds, occasioning him actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act.

A charge that the accused assaulted Ronnie Burt contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act was transferred to the Supreme Court, to be dealt with at the same time as the defended charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm on the complainant.

In accordance with s 68B of the Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT), the accused elected to be tried by a judge alone on the charge that he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on the complainant. The charge of common assault was heard at the same time.

In summary, the prosecution alleged that, in the early hours of Saturday, 21 September 2013, the accused and two friends (Tyler Stevens and Alexander Bower) were in the Civic area of Canberra City. They encountered another group comprising the complainant and five friends (Ray Reynolds, Jessica McCallion, Ronnie Burt, Abby Pratt and Samuel Thomson). The complainant spoke to the accused. Mr Burt intervened. The accused walked up behind Mr Burt, seized the back of his “hoodie” and pulled him backwards. There was a brief “stand-off” between the two groups. The complainant attempted to head-butt Mr Stevens. There…

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 Freeman-Quay (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Freeman-Quay (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 262
Case: [2015] ACTSC 262
Decision Date: 31 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Freeman-Quay (No 1), the defendant was on trial in a court presided over by a judge alone, facing charges including recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, and assault. The defendant was accused of attacking a woman, causing her significant injuries. The woman had reportedly been drinking alcohol and had consumed a large amount of cocaine, which influenced her perception and behaviour during the incident. The defendant claimed self-defence, arguing that the woman had attacked him first, and that he only responded to protect himself.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, and if so, whether the defendant could rely on the defence of self-defence. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's actions amounted to causing grievous bodily harm and assault. Given the defendant's intoxication, the court had to assess whether this affected his capacity to form the necessary intent for the more serious charges.

The court found that the defendant's actions did not amount to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm as he did not have the requisite intent. However, it was determined that he did cause grievous bodily harm, as the injuries sustained by the woman were severe enough to meet this charge. The court also found the defendant guilty of assault, as it was established that he had intentionally caused harm to the woman. The court acknowledged the defendant's claim of self-defence but concluded that it did not absolve him of liability for the lesser charges. The defendant was acquitted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm but found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, but guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.

Guilty of assault.

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.