R v Lee

Case [2001] ACTSC 133 21 December 2001

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v STUART LEE [2001] ACTSC 133 (21 December 2001)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – alternative counts of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm – accused alleged to have caused relevant injuries by shaking a baby – case based on circumstantial evidence – evidence injuries to brain of neonate baby caused by acceleration/deceleration mechanism - need for care in examining bases of medical opinions – paucity of research findings re degree of force necessary – possibility of injuries being innocently caused – hypotheses consistent with innocence not excluded.
COURTS – trial by judge alone - power to acquit at close of Crown case even if prima facie case.
EVIDENCE – Whether evidence by medical experts that injuries caused by shaking admissible.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68C
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 144, s 79

R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
R vSalisbury (1976) VR 452
March v Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
R vPerks (1986) 41 SASR 335
R v Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467
R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
R v Lovett [1975] VR 488
R v Stokes (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
R v Savage [1992] 1 AC 699
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
Vann v Palmer (unreported, [2001] ACTSC 12, Crispin J, 22 February 2001)
R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282
R v Chan-Fook (1994) 99 Cr App R 147
Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573
HG v R (1999) 197 CLR 414
Donyadideh v R, Fed Ct, (unreported, Wilcox, Ryan and Higgins JJ, 23 August 1995)

Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149

Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR

Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v W R Moran Pty Ltd (1939) 61 CLR 735

Doney (1990) 171 CLR 207
R v Rao (unreported, [1999] ACTSC 132, Crispin J, 10 December 1999)
DPP (No 2 of 1993) 70 A Crim R 323
Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45
Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1982] AC 136
May v O’Sullivan (1995) 92 CLR 654
R v Lovett (1908) 1 Cr App R 111
O’Hallorhan v Crafter [1940] SASR 29

No. SCC 69 of 2000

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 21 December 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 69 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

against

STUART LEE

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  21 December 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the first count in the indictment, namely, that on or about 27 July 1999 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Charlie Paige Billerwell.

The accused is not guilty of the offence charged in the second count in the…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2001] ACTSC 133
Case: [2001] ACTSC 133
Decision Date: 21 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved the respondent who faced charges of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The injuries in question were inflicted upon a neonate baby, allegedly by the respondent shaking the infant. The case was heard by a judge alone, as it was a trial without a jury. The evidence presented was largely circumstantial, relying on the medical expert testimony that the injuries were caused by an acceleration/deceleration mechanism, which is often associated with shaking.

The court had to determine the admissibility of the medical experts' evidence, given that the injuries were not directly observed. A critical issue was the basis of the medical opinions, especially considering the limited research on the exact degree of force necessary to cause such injuries. Additionally, the court had to weigh the possibility that the injuries could have been innocently caused and whether the hypotheses consistent with the respondent's innocence were adequately excluded.

The court carefully examined the evidence, highlighting the need for caution in accepting medical opinions where research findings are sparse. The judge considered the possibility that the injuries could have occurred innocently and whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude all hypotheses consistent with the respondent's innocence. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence did not exclude the possibility of the injuries being innocently caused, leading to the respondent's acquittal. The judge exercised the power to acquit at the close of the Crown case, even though a prima facie case appeared to be made out.

Orders