R v Grimson - [2025] QCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Grimson [2025] QCA 43

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIMSON, Andrew Robert
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 237 of 2022
DC No 567 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 6 October 2022 (Jackson KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2025

JUDGES:

Bond JA and Gotterson AJA and Bradley J

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment – where the appellant had served 30 days in pre-sentence custody which the sentencing judge declared as time served – whether the appellant has a viable ground of appeal based on self-defence whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Comer[2019] QCA 111, cited
R v Shambayati [2017] 1 Qd R 453; [2016] QCA 100, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson AJA and with the orders proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON AJA: The appellant, Andrew Robert Grimson, who is self-represented, was tried in the District Court at Southport on a single count, namely, that on 27 September 2021 at Surfers Paradise, he unlawfully assaulted the complainant, Tesfom Fetseme Hagos, and did him bodily harm in contravention of s 339(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) (“the Code”). The trial commenced on 5 October 2022 and concluded on the afternoon of the following day upon the delivery by the jury of a verdict of guilty.
Judge Jackson KC who had presided over the trial, then proceeded to sentence. His Honour ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a period of nine months and fixed a parole release date at 20 January 2023. A period of some 30 days pre-sentence custody was declared time served. Thus, the appellant was required to serve one half of his sentence in custody. A conviction was recorded.
On 27 October 2022, the appellant filed a Form 26 Notice of Appeal[1] to this Court by which he appeals against his conviction and applies for leave to appeal against his sentence. This document which the appellant himself has drafted, lists as grounds of appeal a number of contentions which are essentially factual in nature and which are apparently directed at his conviction. These grounds are not cast in terms of the grounds upon which this Court is to allow an appeal against conviction under s 668E(1) of the Code. As to sentence, the stated ground of appeal in 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 Grimson

Details

AGLC: R v Grimson [2025] QCA 43
Case: [2025] QCA 43
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, appealed against his conviction and sentence following his conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm. The conviction stemmed from an incident in which the appellant punched the complainant, a housekeeper, causing him to sustain a significant injury to his lip. The appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, with 30 days already served in pre-sentence custody being counted as time served. The appellant filed a Form 26 Notice of Appeal, listing several grounds for appeal, which were primarily factual in nature and not framed in terms of the statutory grounds for appeal against conviction. The appellant claimed the sentence was excessive. The primary issues for the court were whether the appellant had a viable ground of appeal based on self-defence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the appellant's grounds of appeal and found them to be insufficient. The court noted that the grounds were not cast in the proper terms required by statute, and therefore did not provide a basis for allowing an appeal against conviction. Additionally, the court found that the appellant's claim regarding the excessiveness of the sentence was not supported by the evidence. The court considered the nature of the offence, the injuries sustained by the complainant, and the appellant's lack of a prior criminal record. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any viable grounds for appeal and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On 27 October 2022, the appellant filed a Form 26 Notice of Appeal[1] to this Court by which he appeals against his conviction and applies for leave to appeal against his sentence. This document which the appellant himself has drafted, lists as grounds of appeal a number of contentions which are essentially factual in nature and which are apparently directed at his conviction. These grounds are not cast in terms of the grounds upon which this Court is to allow an appeal against conviction under s 668E(1) of the Code. As to sentence, the stated ground of appeal in the appellant’s document is that it “is excessive”.[1]AB, 1-3.The circumstances of the offending as revealed by the evidence The complainant was born in East Africa and moved to Australia in 2015. He gave evidence at the trial with the assistance of an interpreter. According to the complainant’s evidence-in-chief, he was working as a housekeeper for the Meriton Suites which are located in an apartment building at Surfers Paradise. At about 9.15 am he knocked on the door of apartment 1803 on the 18th floor and asked the male person who opened the door whether room service was required. This person, whom he had never seen before, replied that it was not.[2][2]Tr 1-18, l15 – Tr 1-19, l35; AB 63, 64. After the end of his shift, and between 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm that afternoon, the complainant was in a small storeroom on the 18th floor. The same person entered the storeroom and asked the complainant who it was that had been knocking on his (the appellant’s) door. The complainant replied that he had not seen anyone knocking on the door. Later, the appellant asked the complainant in what direction an unnamed lady had gone. The complainant said that he had not seen any lady. The appellant thereupon punched him in the face.[3][3]Tr 1-19 ll38-48; AB 64. The blow to the complainant’s face split his lip. An ambulance was called and he was taken to hospital. The wound required stitches. Most of the incident was captured on the apartment building’s security CCTV footage, which was tendered,[4] although not the blow itself. The appellant is seen in the footage engaged in an exchange with the complainant just before the latter sustained his injury. It was put to the complainant by defence counsel that he went to close the storeroom door, and that as he did so, he touched the appellant’s face with his hand.[5] It was further suggested that the appellant did not punch the complainant.[6] The complainant denied touching the appellant’s face[7] and maintained that he was punched by the appellant.[8][4]Exhibit 5.[5]Tr 1-28, l40 – Tr 1-29, l30; AB 73, 74.[6]Tr 1-30, ll26-47; AB 75.[7]Tr 1-29, l30; AB 74.[8]Tr 1-30, l28; AB 75. The Crown also called a police officer who attended upon the complainant on the day of the incident. He confirmed the complainant’s injuries. Photographs of the wound to the lip were taken and tendered in evidence.[9] The officer also spoke to the appellant on the day. He observed a small abrasion-style cut to the middle of the appellant’s right index finger.[10] A photograph of that injury was taken and tendered.[11][9]Exhibits 1-3.[10]Tr 1-36, ll21-23; AB 81.[11]Exhibit 4.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Grimson [2025] QCA 43
PARTIES:	R v GRIMSON, Andrew Robert (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 237 of 2022 DC No 567 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 6 October 2022 (Jackson KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	1 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 March 2025
JUDGES:	Bond JA and Gotterson AJA and Bradley J
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment – where the appellant had served 30 days in pre-sentence custody which the sentencing judge declared as time served – whether the appellant has a viable ground of appeal based on self-defence whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Comer[2019] QCA 111, cited R v Shambayati [2017] 1 Qd R 453; [2016] QCA 100, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent