R v Green

Case [2013] QCA 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Green [2013] QCA 24

PARTIES:

R
v
GREEN, Samuel Mark
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 169 of 2012
DC No 233 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was found guilty by a jury of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where an eye‑witness identified the appellant as having punched the complainant – where complainant hit his head on the ground after being punched by the appellant – where it was open to the jury to find that the complainant’s injuries were caused by the appellant’s punch or from the complainant hitting his head on the ground – where the injuries suffered by the complainant have had a permanent effect on his health – where appellant contended he hit the complainant in self-defence and did not intend to cause serious injury – whether conviction was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed at halfway through the term of imprisonment – where appellant has a lengthy criminal history including offences with violence – where sentencing judge took into account the appellant’s personal circumstances, including his disadvantaged upbringing and problems with alcohol and drug abuse – where the injuries suffered by the complainant have had a permanent effect on his health – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(e), s 9(4)(b), s 9(4)(g)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v D’Arcy [2001] QCA 20, considered
R v Dietz [2009] QCA 392, considered
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58, considered
R v Ford[2011] QCA 208, considered
R v Grimley[2000] QCA 64, considered
R v Katsidis[2003] QCA 82, considered
R v Madden[2005] QCA 439, considered
R v O’Rourke[2003] QCA 220, considered
R v Silvester[1998] QCA 194, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA: After a two day trial in the District Court, on 5 June 2012 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of unlawfully doing…

Continue reading R v Green

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Green [2013] QCA 24
Case
[2013] QCA 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Green involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant was found guilty by a jury following an incident where an eyewitness identified him as having punched the complainant, leading to the complainant hitting his head on the ground. The injuries sustained by the complainant had a permanent impact on his health. The appellant argued that his actions were in self-defence and that he did not intend to cause serious harm. The appeal centred on the reasonableness of the jury's verdict and the adequacy of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that the appellant's punch caused the complainant's injuries, or whether they resulted from the complainant hitting his head on the ground. Additionally, the court assessed the sentence in light of the appellant's criminal history, personal circumstances, and the nature of the complainant's injuries.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude that the appellant's punch caused the complainant's injuries. The eyewitness testimony and the nature of the injuries supported the jury's verdict, which was not unreasonable or insupportable. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that it was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, personal circumstances, and the severity of the complainant's injuries. The sentence was deemed appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.