R v Katsidis - [2003] QCA 82

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Katsidis [2003] QCA 82

PARTIES:

R
v
KATSIDIS, Michael Alan
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 396 of 2002
DC No 126 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and McPherson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1. Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
2. Dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant was a professional boxer - where appellant punched the complainant several times in the face - where appellant's defence was accident - where trial judge's direction to the jury was consistent with that suggested in R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 QdR 333 - whether inconsistent with the decision in R v Van den Bemd [1995] 1 QdR 401 - whether trial judge's direction was a misdirection

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant pleaded self-defence - where trial judge's direction ambiguous as to the necessary state of mind of the accused - where trial judge corrected this error immediately - where trial judge correctly re-directed on this point - whether trial judge's direction was a misdirection

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where appellant interviewed by television journalist - where evidence of conversation adduced - where statement of appellant in conversation false - whether statement admissible

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where appellant sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after eight months - where complainant instigator of attack - where complainant incompetently drunk - where appellant professional boxer - where appellant's criminal history disclosed one prior assault occasioning bodily harm - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 209, cited

R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, considered

R v Dodd [1998] QCA 323; CA No 241 of 1998, 17 September 1998, considered

R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999, considered

R v Grimley [2000] QCA 64; CA No 362 of 1999, 14 March 2000 considered

R v Steindl [2001] QCA 315; CA No 80 of 2001,…

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 Katsidis

Details

AGLC: R v Katsidis [2003] QCA 82
Case: [2003] QCA 82
Decision Date: 7 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a professional boxer, was convicted for punching the complainant several times in the face. The defence presented was that the incident was an accident. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, focusing on several grounds, including potential misdirection by the trial judge, improper admission or rejection of evidence, and the sentencing. The appellant argued that the trial judge's direction to the jury was inconsistent with the decision in R v Van den Bemd [1995] 1 QdR 401, and that the judge's direction was ambiguous as to the necessary state of mind of the accused. Additionally, the appellant contended that a statement made to a journalist, which was later proven to be false, should not have been admitted as evidence.

The court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury constituted a misdirection or non-direction. The judge had initially provided a direction consistent with R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 QdR 333, but the appellant argued this was inconsistent with R v Van den Bemd [1995] 1 QdR 401. The trial judge promptly corrected this error and provided a correct re-direction. The court concluded that while the initial direction was ambiguous, the judge's immediate correction rendered the direction not a misdirection. Furthermore, the court assessed the admissibility of the statement made to the journalist, considering its relevance and the circumstances under which it was obtained.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge's direction, despite the initial ambiguity, was rectified promptly and correctly. The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's background. The court found that the sentence, being a two-year imprisonment suspended after eight months, was appropriate given the appellant's professional status, the complainant's role in the incident, and the appellant's prior criminal history.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the appeal against conviction.

2. Dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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 Katsidis [2003] QCA 82
PARTIES:	R v KATSIDIS, Michael Alan (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 396 of 2002 DC No 126 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 February 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	1. Dismiss the appeal against conviction. 2. Dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant was a professional boxer - where appellant punched the complainant several times in the face - where appellant's defence was accident - where trial judge's direction to the jury was consistent with that suggested in R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 QdR 333 - whether inconsistent with the decision in R v Van den Bemd [1995] 1 QdR 401 - whether trial judge's direction was a misdirection CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant pleaded self-defence - where trial judge's direction ambiguous as to the necessary state of mind of the accused - where trial judge corrected this error immediately - where trial judge correctly re-directed on this point - whether trial judge's direction was a misdirection CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where appellant interviewed by television journalist - where evidence of conversation adduced - where statement of appellant in conversation false - whether statement admissible CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where appellant sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after eight months - where complainant instigator of attack - where complainant incompetently drunk - where appellant professional boxer - where appellant's criminal history disclosed one prior assault occasioning bodily harm - whether sentence manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered Kaporonovski v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 209, cited R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, considered R v Dodd [1998] QCA 323; CA No 241 of 1998, 17 September 1998, considered R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999, considered R v Grimley [2000] QCA 64; CA No 362 of 1999, 14 March 2000 considered R v Steindl [2001] QCA 315; CA No 80 of 2001,…