R v Morcus - [2012] QCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morcus [2012] QCA 95

PARTIES:

R
v
MORCUS, Matthew David

FILE NO/S:

CA No 195 of 2011
DC No 80 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2012

JUDGES:

Chesterman and White JJA, and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – WHERE APPEAL DENIED – where appellant was found guilty at trial of one count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and one count of wilful damage to a motor vehicle – where appellant submitted that the jury was permitted to reason to guilty verdicts on a basis not fairly open to them – where appellant submitted that the jury was not directed about the matters relevant to their consideration of the appellant’s credit – where defence counsel had not put questions to the complainant consistent with the appellant’s version of events – where the appellant made the forensic decision not to have the complainant recalled – whether the failure to give such a warning would not have affected the verdict in light of the whole of the evidence – whether the appellant was wrongly deprived of a chance of acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DENIED – where appellant submitted that his contention that he was not armed with a machete was supported by other evidence – where the complainant’s contention that the appellant was armed with a machete was not supported by other evidence – where the possibility that the wound was caused by accident was not negatived beyond reasonable doubt on the medical evidence given – where the evidence supporting the appellant’s contention might have been disbelieved by the jury – where photographic evidence might have been believed by the jury – whether the jury were able to exclude the possibility of accident beyond reasonable doubt

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
R v Foley [2000] 1 Qd R 290; [1998] QCA 225, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

M Copley SC for the appellant
T A Fuller SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by White JA.

WHITE JA: The appellant was found guilty after a trial in the District Court at Ipswich of one count of wounding with…

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 Morcus

Details

AGLC: R v Morcus [2012] QCA 95
Case: [2012] QCA 95
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morcus involved an appeal against the appellant's convictions for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and wilful damage to a motor vehicle. The appellant contended that the jury's verdicts were based on an improper reasoning process and that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on certain issues, including the appellant's credit and the potential for accidental injury. The appeal was heard by the court which needed to determine whether the trial judge's omissions constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence.

The court examined whether the trial judge's failure to give certain directions to the jury, particularly regarding the potential for accidental injury, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court considered whether the appellant was deprived of a chance of acquittal due to these omissions. Additionally, the court assessed whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable, given the appellant's contention that he was not armed with a machete, and the possibility that the wound was caused by accident. The court concluded that the omissions did not prejudice the appellant's case and that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the appellant was armed and that the wound was not accidental.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court found that the trial judge's omissions did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, and the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The court upheld the appellant's convictions for the charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and wilful damage to a motor vehicle, and the appeal was rejected in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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 Morcus [2012] QCA 95
PARTIES:	R v MORCUS, Matthew David
FILE NO/S:	CA No 195 of 2011 DC No 80 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2012
JUDGES:	Chesterman and White JJA, and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – WHERE APPEAL DENIED – where appellant was found guilty at trial of one count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and one count of wilful damage to a motor vehicle – where appellant submitted that the jury was permitted to reason to guilty verdicts on a basis not fairly open to them – where appellant submitted that the jury was not directed about the matters relevant to their consideration of the appellant’s credit – where defence counsel had not put questions to the complainant consistent with the appellant’s version of events – where the appellant made the forensic decision not to have the complainant recalled – whether the failure to give such a warning would not have affected the verdict in light of the whole of the evidence – whether the appellant was wrongly deprived of a chance of acquittal CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DENIED – where appellant submitted that his contention that he was not armed with a machete was supported by other evidence – where the complainant’s contention that the appellant was armed with a machete was not supported by other evidence – where the possibility that the wound was caused by accident was not negatived beyond reasonable doubt on the medical evidence given – where the evidence supporting the appellant’s contention might have been disbelieved by the jury – where photographic evidence might have been believed by the jury – whether the jury were able to exclude the possibility of accident beyond reasonable doubt Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited R v Foley [2000] 1 Qd R 290; [1998] QCA 225, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	M Copley SC for the appellant T A Fuller SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent