R v Keenan

Case [2007] QCA 440

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Keenan [2007] QCA 440

PARTIES:

R
v
KEENAN, Francis Robert
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 78 of 2007
SC No 120 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Atkinson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1.  Appeal against conviction allowed and conviction set aside
2. Verdicts of acquittal entered for the offence of malicious act with intent under s 317(e) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and for the offence of grievous bodily harm simpliciter under s 320 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant and two co-accused were charged with attempted murder and alternatively with doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where appellant acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent – whether adequate directions were given regarding s 8 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where the jury should have been directed that they must be satisfied that the co-accused's act of causing grievous bodily harm (the doing of an act rendering the principle offender liable to punishment) was the probable consequence of the common intention between the appellant and co-accused – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – GENERALLY – where jury directions on inferences did not sufficiently deal with competing rational inferences favourable to the appellant – where the directions did not meet the requirements set out in Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – GENERALLY – where the jury was misdirected as to s 8 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and the drawing of inferences – whether a retrial should be ordered

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS – where the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter should have been left for the jury's consideration

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where sentence of life imprisonment for grievous bodily harm with intent not appropriate

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 2, s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10A, s 317(e), s 320, s 575, s 579(2)

Darkan v The Queen (2006) 227 CLR 373, applied
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495,…

Continue reading R v Keenan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Keenan [2007] QCA 440
Case
[2007] QCA 440
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Keenan, along with two co-accused, was charged with attempted murder and, in the alternative, grievous bodily harm with intent. The appellant was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder but found guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent. The primary focus of the appeal was whether the jury had been adequately directed on the law, specifically in relation to section 8 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and the drawing of inferences. The court also examined whether the jury should have been left with the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter. Furthermore, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant was argued to be inappropriate.

The legal issues revolved around whether there were misdirections and non-directions to the jury, which could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The key question was whether the jury was properly directed on the necessity of finding that the co-accused's actions causing grievous bodily harm were a probable consequence of the common intention. The appeal also considered whether the jury directions on inferences did not sufficiently address competing rational inferences favourable to the appellant. The court had to determine if the misdirection warranted a retrial and whether the omission of the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter constituted an error.

The Court of Appeal found that there were indeed misdirections and non-directions to the jury. The directions given did not adequately address the principles set out in Knight v The Queen, which require clear instructions on how to draw inferences from the evidence. The court held that the jury should have been directed that they must be satisfied that the co-accused's act of causing grievous bodily harm was a probable consequence of the common intention. The failure to direct the jury properly constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court found that the omission of the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter was an error. The sentence of life imprisonment was also deemed inappropriate given the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the conviction, set aside the conviction, and entered verdicts of acquittal for the offences of malicious act with intent and grievous bodily harm simpliciter. The court's decision highlights the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials to ensure a fair process and accurate verdicts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed and conviction set aside

2. Verdicts of acquittal entered for the offence of malicious act with intent under s 317(e) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and for the offence of grievous bodily harm simpliciter under s 320 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

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.