R v Johnston - [2002] QCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Johnston [2002] QCA 74

PARTIES:

R
v
JOHNSTON, Douglas Lindsay
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 269 of 2001
SC No 542 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR PROCURING - where victim was driven to remote bushland - where grievous bodily harm was done to the victim - whether appellant lured the victim into the car for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to perform an act which caused grievous bodily harm

CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - CODE PROVISIONS - whether the appellant was a party to the offence under s 7(1)(b) or s 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - COMMON PURPOSE - CODE PROVISIONS - whether appellant formed a common intention with others to do serious harm to the victim

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - evidence indicated appellant's involvement in plan to do serious harm to the victim - whether this evidence had no or very limited probative value and substantial prejudicial effect

Criminal Code (Qld) s 7(1)(b), s 8

R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1, followed

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for appellant
S G Bain for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: On 14 August 2001 the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm on 18 June 1999. He was not present when, on that day, which was a Friday, grievous bodily harm was undoubtedly done to the victim David Mark Ware. He was convicted either on the basis of s 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code that he did or omitted to do an act for the purpose of enabling or aiding other persons to commit that offence; or that, pursuant to s 8, he was one of a number of persons who formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, that in the prosecution of that purpose grievous bodily harm was committed and that that offence was of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose.

He appeals against his conviction on three grounds. The first is that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The second is that a miscarriage of justice occurred in consequence of the erroneous admission into evidence of a statement by Ware that, when he was in a vehicle and was, in effect, being abducted by four men, Anderson, Worland, Speer and a fourth unidentified person and it was…

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 Johnston

Details

AGLC: R v Johnston [2002] QCA 74
Case: [2002] QCA 74
Decision Date: 15 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Johnston, the appellant was convicted of complicity in grievous bodily harm under the Criminal Code (Qld). The victim was lured into a car by the appellant and others, driven to remote bushland, and subjected to serious harm. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis that the evidence did not establish his involvement in the plan or his intent to commit grievous bodily harm.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant was a party to the offence under sections 7(1)(b) or 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The court also had to consider whether the appellant formed a common intention with others to do serious harm to the victim. Additionally, the court had to assess the admissibility of evidence indicating the appellant's involvement in the plan to do serious harm to the victim, which had substantial prejudicial effect.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the plan and his intent to commit grievous bodily harm. The court found that the appellant lured the victim into the car for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to perform an act which caused grievous bodily harm. The court also held that the evidence had significant probative value and did not have a substantial prejudicial effect. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal against the conviction be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Johnston [2002] QCA 74
PARTIES:	R v JOHNSTON, Douglas Lindsay (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 269 of 2001 SC No 542 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR PROCURING - where victim was driven to remote bushland - where grievous bodily harm was done to the victim - whether appellant lured the victim into the car for the purpose of enabling or aiding others to perform an act which caused grievous bodily harm CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - CODE PROVISIONS - whether the appellant was a party to the offence under s 7(1)(b) or s 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld) CRIMINAL LAW - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - COMMON PURPOSE - CODE PROVISIONS - whether appellant formed a common intention with others to do serious harm to the victim CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - evidence indicated appellant's involvement in plan to do serious harm to the victim - whether this evidence had no or very limited probative value and substantial prejudicial effect Criminal Code (Qld) s 7(1)(b), s 8 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1, followed
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn-Harris for appellant S G Bain for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent