R v Harris - [2022] NSWDC 301

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Harris [2022] NSWDC 301
Hearing dates: 29 March, 31 March, 19 April, 20 April, 11 July, 12 July, 13 July and 14 July 2022
Date of orders: 1 August 2022
Decision date: 01 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Finding of not guilty

Catchwords:
CRIME - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act, 1995

Cases Cited:
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Harchaw (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Kuehne v R; Humphries M v R; Humphries A v R [2012] NSWCCA 270
Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12
R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628

Texts Cited:
CRIME - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
John Joseph HARRIS
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Abdulhak (for the Crown)
Ms L Rowan (for the Accused)
Solicitors:
Ms L Nichols, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms C McCristal, George Sten & Co

File Number(s): 2019/345733
Publication restriction: No

of exhibit C Judgment

On 29 March 2022 the accused appeared before me at the Sydney District Court and pleaded not guilty to one count on an indictment, namely that he:

On the 3^rd day of November 2019 in Ashfield in the State of New South Wales did wound Chloe Spinks with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Chloe Spinks.
The accused elected to be tried by judge alone. The Crown consented to that course and the Election is exhibit A in the trial.

I should indicate at this point that the matter progressed in a piecemeal fashion. The matter was listed to commence some weeks earlier than Monday, 28 March 2022. The reason for it not commencing earlier is not known to me. In any event evidence was commenced on 29 March 2022 but the complainant was not available the following day and her evidence continued on 31 March 2022. Later in the trial the partner of the accused suffered an acute medical episode, which required urgent surgery. The evidence later continued on 19 April and 20 April 2022. The accused then breached his bail by leaving New South Wales and going to Shepparton in Victoria. The accused was later arrested and extradited back to New South Wales. There were then issues relating to the availability of both counsel in the matter. By arrangement the matter was listed to continue before me on 11 July 2022 at Wagga Wagga. It is uncontroversial that the accused suffers significant mental health issues and those issues had to stabilise before the trial could continue. After extradition the accused was held at the Junee Correctional Centre and it was therefore convenient for the matter to continue before me at Wagga Wagga. Both counsel attended Wagga Wagga to complete the matter. The court is grateful to counsel for their co-operation in this regard.
The piecemeal fashion in which this…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2022] NSWDC 301
Case: [2022] NSWDC 301
Decision Date: 01 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Harris, the appellant stood trial before the Supreme Court of Victoria, charged with wounding a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The facts of the case involved an altercation between the accused and the victim, during which the victim sustained injuries that the prosecution argued were inflicted with malicious intent. The case centred on the determination of whether the accused had indeed acted with the requisite intent to cause serious harm.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had intentionally inflicted the injuries upon the victim, and second, whether the injuries could be classified as grievous bodily harm within the legal definition. The court was tasked with evaluating the credibility of witness testimonies, examining the physical evidence, and applying the relevant statutory provisions to determine the presence of the accused's intent and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the intent necessary for a conviction. The evidence presented did not convincingly demonstrate that the accused had the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as required by the statutory definition. Furthermore, the court determined that the injuries sustained by the victim, while serious, did not meet the threshold of grievous bodily harm as defined under the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused, rendering a finding of not guilty.

The court made no further orders beyond the finding of not guilty. The accused was released from custody pending any potential appeal by the prosecution.

Orders

Orders of the court

Finding of not guilty

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Harris [2022] NSWDC 301
Hearing dates:	29 March, 31 March, 19 April, 20 April, 11 July, 12 July, 13 July and 14 July 2022
Date of orders:	1 August 2022
Decision date:	01 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Finding of not guilty
Catchwords:	CRIME - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act, 1995
Cases Cited:	Dasreef Pty Ltd v Harchaw (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Kuehne v R; Humphries M v R; Humphries A v R [2012] NSWCCA 270 Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12 R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628
Texts Cited:	CRIME - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina John Joseph HARRIS
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Abdulhak (for the Crown) Ms L Rowan (for the Accused) Solicitors: Ms L Nichols, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Ms C McCristal, George Sten & Co
File Number(s):	2019/345733
Publication restriction:	No