R v King - [2001] QCA 525

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v King [2001] QCA 525

PARTIES:

R
v
KING, Scott Phillip
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 181 of 2001
DC No 16 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2001

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Mackenzie and Chesterman JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where complainant struck twice on the head by the appellant – where the complainant suffered brain damage as a result of the attack – where the complainant was offensive, unresponsive and disrespectful in court – whether complainant’s outbursts deprived the appellant of a fair trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for doing grievous bodily harm and 8 ½ years’ imprisonment for armed robbery – where the applicant caused severe head injuries to complainant – where applicant had a criminal history – where applicant was on parole at the time of the offence – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Kenward [2000] QCA 482; CA No 100 of 2000, 24 November 2000, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Ms S Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Chesterman J and the additional reasons of Mackenzie J and I agree that for those reasons the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

MACKENZIE J: The facts of the case and the conduct of the complainant which is alleged to have led to an unfair trial are set out fully in Chesterman J’s reasons for judgment.

The issue litigated in the trial was whether the jury accepted that the accused did not act in self-defence. The evidence upon which the defence was founded came solely from the appellant’s record of interview. He did not give evidence, with the result that a number of circumstances consistent with the complainant’s account, referred to in Chesterman J’s reasons, which may have appeared to the jury to be inadequately explained in his record of interview, remained that way at the end of the evidence.

The learned trial judge was faced with a difficult task in trying to control the witness. The outbursts, which were in many cases offensive and disrespectful to the court, counsel and the accused, were in all probability the product of an impaired capacity to exercise self-control, not a calculated decision…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2001] QCA 525
Case: [2001] QCA 525
Decision Date: 23 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v King, the appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the complainant's conduct in court deprived him of a fair trial and that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial was fair in light of the complainant's outbursts and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate given the circumstances.

The court examined the nature of the complainant's conduct and its impact on the fairness of the trial. It concluded that the complainant's offensive, unresponsive, and disrespectful behaviour did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately managed the complainant's conduct and that the appellant had been afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself.

In assessing the sentence, the court considered the severity of the appellant's actions, his criminal history, and the fact that he was on parole at the time of the offence. The court determined that the sentence, which included 4 years for grievous bodily harm and 8 ½ years for armed robbery, was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the appellant's criminal background.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court upheld the original conviction and sentence, finding no basis for overturning the trial outcome or reducing the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is dismissed

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

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 King [2001] QCA 525
PARTIES:	R v KING, Scott Phillip (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 181 of 2001 DC No 16 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 November 2001
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Mackenzie and Chesterman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where complainant struck twice on the head by the appellant – where the complainant suffered brain damage as a result of the attack – where the complainant was offensive, unresponsive and disrespectful in court – whether complainant’s outbursts deprived the appellant of a fair trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for doing grievous bodily harm and 8 ½ years’ imprisonment for armed robbery – where the applicant caused severe head injuries to complainant – where applicant had a criminal history – where applicant was on parole at the time of the offence – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Kenward [2000] QCA 482; CA No 100 of 2000, 24 November 2000, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Ms S Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent