R v Lovell; Ex parte - [2015] QCA 136

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136

PARTIES:

R
v
LOVELL, Dylan David
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 226 of 2014
DC No 400 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 669A(2) Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 10 July 2014

DELIVERED ON:

24 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 May 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes, Gotterson and Philippides JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The question referred,

“Is a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the Criminal Code?”

should be answered “yes”.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – CASES STATED AND REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF LAW – where the respondent was charged under s 320 Criminal Code (Qld) with doing grievous bodily harm – where the complainant suffered a disfiguring injury to the right side of his face which was surgically repaired – where the complainant would have been left severely disfigured had he not received medical treatment – where the primary judge ruled that in order to prove grievous bodily harm it was necessary that the Crown demonstrate that the complainant was presently disfigured – where the Crown consequently entered a nolle prosequi – where the Crown referred the question to this Court pursuant to s 669A(2) Criminal Code (Qld) – whether a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment is capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the Criminal Code (Qld)

Criminal Code (Qld), s 1, s 320, s 669A(2)
Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 47

Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne City Council (2005) 14 VR 678; [2005] VSCA 295, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited
R v Hanrahan [1999] QDC 277, considered
R v Lobston [1983] 2 Qd R 720, considered
R v Tranby [1992] 1 Qd R 432; (1991) 52 A Crim R 228, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan QC for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
J J Allen QC for Legal Aid Queensland

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
Legal Aid Queensland appeared on its own behalf

HOLMES JA: The Attorney-General has referred a point of law to this Court, pursuant to s 669A(2) of the Criminal Code. The point is framed as follows:
“Is a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the Criminal Code?”
Section 669A(4) of the Criminal Code requires the Court to hear argument on the reference, after…

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 Lovell; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Lovell; Ex parte [2015] QCA 136
Case: [2015] QCA 136
Decision Date: 24 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lovell; Ex parte involved the respondent, Lovell, who was charged under section 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld) with causing grievous bodily harm to a complainant. The complainant had sustained a disfiguring injury to the right side of his face, which was subsequently repaired through surgical intervention. Had the complainant not received medical treatment, he would have been left severely disfigured. The primary judge determined that to establish grievous bodily harm under the statute, it was necessary for the Crown to demonstrate that the complainant was currently disfigured. As a result, the Crown opted to enter a nolle prosequi. Subsequently, the Crown referred the matter to the court pursuant to section 669A(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), seeking clarification on whether a disfigurement remedied by medical treatment could constitute a serious disfigurement within the ambit of 'grievous bodily harm' as defined in section 1 of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with resolving the legal question of whether a disfigurement that is remedied by medical treatment can still amount to a serious disfigurement under the definition of 'grievous bodily harm'. This interpretation hinged on the understanding of the term 'disfigurement' and its implications in the context of grievous bodily harm as codified in the statute. The court needed to consider whether the corrective effect of medical treatment negated the seriousness of the disfigurement at the time of the offence. The Crown's reference raised the necessity for a definitive interpretation to guide future proceedings and ensure the proper application of the law.

The court deliberated on the statutory definition and the broader implications of medical intervention on the characterisation of grievous bodily harm. It concluded that despite medical remediation, a disfigurement that would have resulted in severe disfigurement without such intervention retains its seriousness. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, affirming that a disfigurement remedied by medical treatment could indeed amount to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of 'grievous bodily harm' as per section 1 of the Criminal Code. This decision ensures that the seriousness of the harm is not diminished by subsequent medical treatment, thereby providing clarity for similar cases in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

The question referred,

“Is a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the Criminal Code?”

should be answered “yes”.

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 Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136
PARTIES:	R v LOVELL, Dylan David (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 226 of 2014 DC No 400 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s 669A(2) Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 10 July 2014
DELIVERED ON:	24 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 May 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes, Gotterson and Philippides JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The question referred, “Is a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the *Criminal Code?” should be answered “yes”.*
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – CASES STATED AND REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF LAW – where the respondent was charged under s 320 Criminal Code (Qld) with doing grievous bodily harm – where the complainant suffered a disfiguring injury to the right side of his face which was surgically repaired – where the complainant would have been left severely disfigured had he not received medical treatment – where the primary judge ruled that in order to prove grievous bodily harm it was necessary that the Crown demonstrate that the complainant was presently disfigured – where the Crown consequently entered a nolle prosequi – where the Crown referred the question to this Court pursuant to s 669A(2) Criminal Code (Qld) – whether a disfigurement which is remedied by medical treatment is capable of amounting to a serious disfigurement within the meaning of ‘grievous bodily harm’ in s 1 of the Criminal Code (Qld) Criminal Code (Qld), s 1, s 320, s 669A(2) Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 47 Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne City Council (2005) 14 VR 678; [2005] VSCA 295, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited R v Hanrahan [1999] QDC 277, considered R v Lobston [1983] 2 Qd R 720, considered R v Tranby [1992] 1 Qd R 432; (1991) 52 A Crim R 228, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan QC for the applicant No appearance for the respondent J J Allen QC for Legal Aid Queensland
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent Legal Aid Queensland appeared on its own behalf