R v Hyatt

Case [2019] QCA 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hyatt [2019] QCA 106

PARTIES:

R
v
HYATT, Martin Leigh
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 200 of 2018
DC No 359 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 19 June 2018; Date of Sentence: 27 June 2018 (Burnett DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 13 May 2019
Date of Publication of Reasons: 31 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 May 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Davis J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 14 May 2019

1.    Appeal allowed.

2.    Conviction quashed.

3.    Sentence set aside.

4.    Order that there be a retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the appellant was convicted by jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation – where the alleged offence occurred in prison – where it was alleged in cross-examination that the complainant had fabricated the allegations against the accused with a view to obtaining compensation – where it was alleged that this amounted to an imputation as to the complainant’s character – where the learned trial judge intimated that cross-examination of the accused on his prior convictions would be allowed if he gave evidence – whether the learned trial judge erred in exercising the discretion to allow the accused to be cross-examined on his prior convictions if called and the extent to which the prior convictions could be put to the defendant if he gave evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the learned trial judge failed to give a warning to the jury against acting on evidence – whether the trial judge’s failure to give a warning caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –  OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES CRIMINAL LAW – where the accused was charged with a circumstance of aggravation namely being armed with a “dangerous instrument” – where the learned trial judge misdirected the jury on the circumstance of aggravation by failing to draw a distinction between a “weapon” and an “instrument” and between the thing being “dangerous” or “offensive” – whether a “shiv” was proved to be a “dangerous instrument”

Criminal Code (Qld), s 1, s 339, s 644, s 668E
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 15, s 18, s 19, s 101

Ali v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 662; [2005] HCA 8, cited
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60, cited
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
Dixon v Seears (1982) 16 NTR 20, cited
JJB v The Queen (2006) 161 A Crim R 187; [2006] NSWCCA 126, cited
Harrison v Thornton (1966)…

Continue reading R v Hyatt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hyatt [2019] QCA 106
Case
[2019] QCA 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hyatt, the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation, specifically being armed with a "dangerous instrument," which occurred in the Capricornia Correctional Centre. The complainant, Mr Williams, testified that during a conversation with the appellant, he was struck in the head with an object wrapped in a sock. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including the trial judge's conduct and the adequacy of jury directions. The court was required to decide whether the trial judge erred in allowing cross-examination about the complainant's alleged fabrication of the charges and whether the judge misdirected the jury by not distinguishing between a "weapon" and an "instrument" or between "dangerous" and "offensive" when considering the "dangerous instrument" charge.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in several respects. Firstly, the judge allowed cross-examination on the complainant's credibility concerning the alleged fabrication of charges, which amounted to an improper imputation of the complainant's character. Secondly, the trial judge's comments regarding the potential cross-examination of the appellant on his prior convictions if he chose to testify were inappropriate and could have prejudiced the jury. Additionally, the judge failed to give an appropriate warning to the jury regarding the complainant's credibility, which the court deemed a significant error. The misdirection on the definition of "dangerous instrument" was also noted as a contributing factor to the miscarriage of justice. The failure to properly direct the jury on this point meant that the jury's understanding of the aggravating factor was flawed, affecting the fairness of the trial.

The court concluded that these errors were substantial enough to result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the sentence set aside. The court ordered a retrial, noting that while there was a case to answer, the errors in the trial required a fresh hearing to ensure a fair trial. The decision did not address the specific sentence, as the conviction was quashed, and the case would be retried.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 14 May 2019

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Conviction quashed.

3. Sentence set aside.

4. Order that there be a retrial.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I joined in the orders for the reasons which follow.The course of the trial and the evidence On 5 October 2013 both the appellant and the complainant, Mr Williams, were inmates in the Capricornia Correctional Centre at Etna Creek near Rockhampton. The offence was alleged to have been committed within the prison. Mr Williams gave evidence that he had heard through the prison grapevine that the appellant had some issue with him. He approached the appellant and had a discussion with him in a laneway near the residential unit in the prison. At that point another prisoner, Ben Carey, was present.[6][6]Appeal Record Book (ARB) 78-79. Mr Williams explained that during that conversation the appellant told Mr Williams that he, Mr Williams, owed a person known as Mick Rogers $15,000.00 and that the money had to be repaid. The appellant also said that when Mr Williams and a woman named Chantelle Barnett were co-habiting (it seems in 2010 or 2011)[7] Mr Williams assaulted her. Mr Williams gave evidence that he denied to the appellant that he had assaulted Ms Barnett. It was put to Mr Williams by defence counsel that the appellant had been in a sexual relationship with Ms Barnett between 2009 and 2012. Mr Williams denied knowledge of that[8] and the appellant gave no evidence to support the suggestion.[7]ARB 86.[8]ARB 87. Mr Williams said that he suggested to the appellant that the conversation be continued on the prison oval. The appellant agreed but said that he needed to firstly return to the residential unit and change his clothes. The three men then separated. Shortly thereafter, according to Mr Williams, he met up with the appellant and Mr Carey at the oval. Mr Williams and the appellant walked around the oval conversing while Mr Carey remained at the entrance to the oval. Mr Williams gave evidence that the pair discussed the debt to Mr Rogers and how it would be repaid. Then the conversation turned to Chantelle Barnett. When the appellant repeated his earlier accusation that Mr Williams had assaulted Ms Barnett, Mr Williams again denied wrongdoing towards her. This, according to Mr Williams, led to the appellant inviting him to fight. Mr Williams then turned around, fearing that someone was approaching him from behind. As he looked back he was struck a blow to the head and he fell to his knees. When he turned back to face the appellant he saw that the appellant had “a steel metal thing” in his fist and the object had a sock wrapped around it.[9] The appellant attempted to strike Mr Williams but he walked away and sought medical assistance.[9]ARB 80. There is no doubt that Mr Williams was involved in some incident in the prison on 5 October 2013 and was injured. He was hospitalised and the nature of the injuries was admitted in these terms:“There was 5 cm v-shaped mildly deep laceration around the left back region of his skull, with blood shooting from the wound, which turned out to be an arterial bleed. CT scans showed the complainant had the following:(a)a depressed (“pushed in”) fracture with a small subdural haematoma (“bleeding inside the skull”);(b)bruising over the areas of impact; and(c)an excess of fluid gathering inside the skull.”[10][10]ARB 166.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I draw no final conclusions as to the effect upon the verdict of these issues, but on a retrial these issues ought to be considered.Conclusions The failure to give an appropriate warning in relation to the evidence of Mr Williams, and the comments made by the judge after considering the application of s 15 of the Evidence Act have caused the trial to miscarry. For those reasons it was necessary to quash the conviction. As there is obviously a case for the appellant to answer, and as there are no reasons why there will not be a retrial,[67] a retrial was ordered.[67]Subject of course to the Director’s discretion. As the conviction has fallen there is no need to consider the appeal against sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.