R v Joinbee

Case [2013] QCA 246

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Joinbee [2013] QCA 246

PARTIES:

R
v
JOINBEE, Kenneth John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 242 of 2012
SC No 134 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Philippides and Boddice JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the conviction on the offence of grievous bodily harm, and ordering a new trial in respect of that offence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of arson – where there was evidence electrical sparking could have been the ignition source – where the jury were directed they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant dispersed the ignitable liquid in the house to be satisfied the appellant set fire to the house – where the appellant contended “sets fire to” in s 461(1) Criminal Code meant “ignites” – where the appellant contended it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant ignited the fire – whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the judge directed the jury that to prove the offence of arson, in relation to “set fire to”, it was sufficient the jury be satisfied the appellant created the breeding ground for the fire by dispersing ignitable liquid in the house – where the appellant contended “sets fire to” in s 461(1) Criminal Code meant “ignites” – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury in relation to the element “set fire to”

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant contended the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to causation – where the jury were directed they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant dispersed the ignitable liquid in the house to be satisfied the appellant set fire to the house – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant contended the excuse of accident under s 23(1)(b) Criminal Code should have been left to the jury in respect of both offences of arson and grievous bodily harm – where the jury were directed they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant dispersed the ignitable liquid in the house to be satisfied the appellant was guilty of the offence of arson – where expert evidence posited…

Continue reading R v Joinbee

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Joinbee [2013] QCA 246
Case
[2013] QCA 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant appealed against a conviction for arson, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence that electrical sparking could have been the ignition source. The court was required to decide whether the verdict was unreasonable, if the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the meaning of "sets fire to" in section 461(1) of the Criminal Code, and whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury on causation and in not leaving the excuse of accident to the jury.

The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the meaning of "sets fire to" in s 461(1) was not erroneous. The court found that the trial judge correctly directed the jury that it was sufficient for them to be satisfied the appellant created the breeding ground for the fire by dispersing ignitable liquid in the house. The court held that the trial judge did not err in failing to direct the jury as to causation, as the judge directed the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant dispersed the ignitable liquid in the house to be satisfied the appellant set fire to the house. However, the court held that the trial judge erred in not leaving the excuse of accident to the jury in respect of both offences of arson and grievous bodily harm.

The court found that the excuse of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code should have been left to the jury in respect of the offence of grievous bodily harm. The expert evidence posited the source of the ignition was an electrical sparking rather than an act of the appellant, which may have caused a jury to have reasonable doubt as to whether the infliction of grievous bodily harm was an event which occurred by accident. Therefore, the court found that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the conviction on the offence of grievous bodily harm, and ordering a new trial in respect of that offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the conviction on the offence of grievous bodily harm, and ordering a new trial in respect of that offence.

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.