R v Peter James Huggett (Appellant) No. Sccrm-97-48, Scgrg-97-23 Judgment No. 6195 Number of Pages 9 Criminal Law

The case before the Court was an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, Peter James Huggett, who had been convicted by a jury of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to his nephew, Darryl James Huggett, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. The appellant was acquitted on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and damaging property. The grounds of appeal were that the verdict of guilty was inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty on the other charges, that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown argued that the verdicts were not inconsistent, that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict, and that the sentence was not excessive.

The Court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent as the jury had been directed to consider each charge separately and it was possible for the jury to find the appellant guilty of the second charge while acquitting him of the first and third. The Court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict as the medical evidence and the evidence of the alleged victim and a witness were consistent with the Crown's case. The Court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as the appellant had a poor criminal history and the offence was serious with the victim suffering serious injuries. The appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore dismissed.