R v Mathews - [1995] QCA 336

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 336

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 18 of 1995

Brisbane

[R. v. Mathews]

THE QUEEN

RUSSELL GORDEN HAIG MATHEWS

Appellant

Macrossan CJ
Pincus JA
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 08/08/1995

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory - whether summing-up defective.
Counsel:	Appellant in person Mr G Rice for the respondent

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions for

the respondent

Hearing Date:

24 March 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 08/08/1995
After a six day trial in the Brisbane District Court at
which he conducted his own defence, the appellant was convicted

of assaulting Anne Scahill thereby occasioning her bodily harm.

This appeal is against his conviction.

In 1993 Ms Scahill was employed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission ("the Commission") as a senior legal adviser. On the afternoon of 16 September 1993 she attended the Brisbane Registry of the Federal Court of Australia to settle an appeal index. The appeal had been instituted by the present appellant against a decision of Spender J in proceedings between the appellant and the Commission. While Ms Scahill was waiting to see the Registrar, the appellant approached her. After a brief conversation in which Ms Scahill identified herself, the appellant assaulted her. In the ensuing scuffle, Ms Scahill sustained bodily injury.

Ms Scahill testified that, after she told the appellant who she was, the appellant seized her right elbow, saying "You know the documents are stolen. You are under arrest." According to Ms Scahill, she told the appellant: "Take your hands off me". He reacted, she said, by seizing both her wrists while continuing to announce that she was under arrest. She called out to court staff for assistance. As she struggled, the appellant put her into a head lock which, she said, caused a deal of pain in the region of the neck and about the ears. Ms Scahill told the jury that, as she sought to break free, she tried to strike the appellant in the groin with her knee. He then relaxed his grip and a security officer pulled her behind a security door and into the Registry area. The substance, though not all the detail, of Ms Scahill's account was corroborated by two witnesses to the assault - a security officer and the Court Manager.

The appellant admitted having taken hold of Ms Scahill in an attempt to arrest her. However, he maintained that the headlock, which probably was the cause of the bodily harm, was applied only after Ms Scahill tried to knee him in the groin. He testified that he put Ms Scahill into a headlock fearing that she might again try to strike him in the groin.

The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved that the assault was not justified or excused by law. The appellant suggested that the assault was lawful, calling in aid s.546(d) of the Criminal Code, which provides…

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 Mathews

Details

AGLC: R v Mathews [1995] QCA 336
Case: [1995] QCA 336
Decision Date: 8/08/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mathews, the appellant stood trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia on charges of murder. The appellant was alleged to have unlawfully killed the victim by shooting them with a firearm. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but the appellant subsequently appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that the summing-up by the trial judge was defective.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's summing-up was sufficient and whether the jury's verdict was based on evidence that was both safe and satisfactory. The appellant contended that the summing-up did not adequately address the burden of proof and the need for the prosecution to exclude all reasonable doubt. The appellant also argued that the summing-up did not sufficiently direct the jury to consider the possibility of manslaughter as an alternative verdict.

The court considered the arguments presented by the appellant and examined the trial judge's summing-up. The court concluded that the summing-up was adequate and that it properly directed the jury on the principles of burden of proof and reasonable doubt. The court held that the summing-up was not defective and that the jury's verdict was based on evidence that was both safe and satisfactory. The court further held that the trial judge had correctly excluded the possibility of manslaughter as an alternative verdict because there was no evidence to support such a verdict. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Orders