R v Pattison

[2019] QCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pattison [2019] QCA 30

PARTIES:

R
v
PATTISON, Joel Wayne
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 132 of 2018
DC No 1596 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 10 May 2018 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 February 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm for fracturing the complainant’s jaw – where the complainant gave evidence that she was punched in the face by the appellant – where the complainant admitted that she did not see the appellant punch her – where the appellant gave evidence at trial of an alternative hypothesis for the cause of the complainant’s injury – where the appellant’s evidence was that the complainant’s injury was caused when she slipped on water and fell on her face – whether the jury could have reasonably excluded the hypothesis proposed by the appellant – whether the verdict was unreasonable having regard to all the evidence

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied

COUNSEL:

G M McGuire for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. SOFRONOFF P:  The appellant was convicted of one count of doing grievous bodily harm to Sarah Schneider.  At the trial, the appellant accepted that Ms Schneider had suffered grievous bodily harm, in the form of a broken jaw, but denied that he had caused the injury.

2. Ms Schneider’s evidence was to the following effect.  She and her infant daughter moved into a flat in Zillmere in early 2013.  The appellant lived in the same block of flats together with his father, Wayne Pattison, and his sister, Tamara Pattison.  After a few months, Ms Schneider and the appellant entered into a relationship and, although they never fully cohabited together, they had two children.  Their relationship was not good.  When the appellant drank he did so to the point of drunkenness and would become angry.  He did not drink every day but would customarily do so on payday.  He was a jealous man.  He resented any contact between Ms Schneider and the father of her daughter.  The appellant prohibited Ms Schneider speaking to her daughter’s father, including answering his phone calls, unless the appellant was present.

3. On the afternoon of Thursday, 25 June 2015, Ms Schneider was at her flat with the appellant’s sister, Tamara.  They were looking at photos on Ms Schneider’s phone when she received a phone call.  Her swiping action to look at photos resulted in the call being answered unintentionally.  It was her daughter’s father calling.  Ms Schneider immediately terminated the call.  That night she admitted to…