R v Jurcik

[2001] QCA 390

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jurcik [2001] QCA 390

PARTIES:

R
v
JURCIK, Peter Walter
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 87 of 2001
SC No 31 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 September 2001

JUDGES:

Thomas JA, White and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON – DIRECTION –GENERAL –whether sufficient evidence to support a direction to the jury  as to the appellant’s intoxication - whether sufficient evidence to support a direction to the jury as to the appellant’s good character

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON – DIRECTION – GENERAL – whether miscarriage of justice in failure to direct jury that defence counsel had put to a prosecution witness that a conversation did not occur

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code (Qld) s 28
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 161B(3)

Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1, considered
R v Aziz [1996] AC 41, applied

R v Bitossi [1984] 2 Qd R 51, considered

R v Brown CA No 125 of 1992, 3 June 1992, distinguished
R v Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467, considered
R v Faure [1999] 2 VR 537, considered
R v Farquhar  CA No 349 of 1994, 16 November 1994, considered
R v Kingelty and Griffiths [2000] QCA 198, CA Nos 390 and 413 of 1999, 26 May 2000, followed
R v Reynolds CA No 31 of 1982, 29 July 1982, considered
R v Soper CA No 245 of 1992, 11 March 1993, considered
R v Stokes & Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25, considered
R v Rose (1996) 87 A Crim R 109, considered
Viro v R (1978-1979) 141 CLR 88, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the appellant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Price and Roobottom (Southport) for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. THOMAS JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of White J and with the orders she proposes.

1. WHITE J:  The appellant was arraigned on charges of attempted murder, unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding.  He pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding which was not accepted by the prosecutor in discharge of the indictment and the trial proceeded on…