R v Griffiths No. Sccrm-98-260 Judgment No. S70 - [1999] SASC 70

R v GRIFFITHS
[1999] SASC 70

Court of Criminal Appeal: Millhouse, Prior and Duggan J

MILLHOUSE J: I agree with the reasons of Prior J and with the order he proposes.
PRIOR J: This is an appeal against conviction.
The appellant was charged on information first with unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm and in the alternative with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first charge. In this appeal it is said that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported on the evidence because the injuries sustained by the victim did not amount to grievous bodily harm. The appellant says that the trial judge failed to adequately draw medical evidence to the attention of the jury and wrongly suggested that there really could not be any doubt about the victim sustaining grievous bodily harm.
In further grounds of appeal complaint is made about a failure to direct the jury on things put to the jury with respect to a prosecution submission as to the absence of a motive to lie and the failure to direct the jury that it was no part of their task in determination of the proof of the charge to choose between competing versions. The trial judge had said to the jury that in his view as between prosecution witnesses and the accused someone was telling lies.
The appellant did not dispute that on 15 December 1997 he assaulted Paul Blakeney. He denied that he used any weapon in the assault. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant struck Blakeney on the side of the face with a piece of metal pipe. Blakeney’s evidence was that the appellant produced a piece of iron pipe from inside his trousers and hit him across the right side of the head and face, the force of the blows causing him to lose consciousness briefly. Blakeney said that the appellant told him that he should consider himself lucky that that was all he got and that he should not contact the police or it could be worse for him next time. The appellant maintained that Blakeney had struck him first and that he had retaliated in self defence striking a single blow to Blakeney’s face.
The injuries resulting from the assault were treated at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The Surgical Registrar in the Cranio Facial Unit described the injuries sustained by Mr Blakeney as first observed at the hospital as swelling over the right side of his face with a small laceration under the right eye and a loss of sensation on the right cheek. X-rays and a CT scan disclosed underlying facial fractures on the right side of the face. Those fractures were to the side wall and the floor of Blakeney’s right eye socket. There were also fractures through the right cheekbone. Blakeney also complained of a loss of sensation under his right eye, right cheek and right upper gum. He…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Griffiths No. Sccrm-98-260 Judgment No. S70 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] SASC 70
Decision Date: 25 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Griffiths, the appellant appealed against his conviction for unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and in the alternative, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, as the injuries sustained by the victim did not amount to grievous bodily harm. The appeal also challenged the trial judge's directions to the jury, including the omission to direct them that if they believed the injuries resulted from a single blow with a fist, they would have to closely consider whether they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had acted with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The court examined the legal issues regarding the definition of grievous bodily harm and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury. It was determined that grievous bodily harm does not necessarily mean life-threatening harm, and the trial judge's occasional use of the term "serious bodily injury" instead of "really serious bodily harm" did not constitute a significant error. However, the court found that the trial judge's failure to provide adequate directions on the factual versions of events before the court, particularly in relation to the intent required for the charge of grievous bodily harm, was problematic. The court concluded that the verdict on the first count was unsafe due to this deficiency in direction.

The court quashed the conviction on the first count and substituted a conviction on the second count, charging assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was remitted to the trial judge for consideration of an appropriate sentence.

Orders