R v Phillips - [2017] QCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Phillips [2017] QCA 192

PARTIES:

R
v
PHILLIPS, Tammy Lee-Ann
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 325 of 2016
DC No 493 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 28 October 2016 (Durward SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J

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 by a jury of common assault and grievous bodily harm – where the appellant and the complainant were in a relationship – where the appellant assaulted the complainant with a clamp – where the appellant stabbed the complainant with a knife – where the appellant elected not to give evidence at trial – where the appellant contends that the findings of the jury were against the evidence as a whole – whether the appellant should succeed in her appeal

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – STATEMENTS AGAINST INTERESTS – ADMISSIONS – where there was a pre-trial application to exclude evidence of 000 calls made by the complainant – whether the trial judge erred by allowing the evidence – whether or not the 000 evidence came within an exception to the hearsay rule

Criminal Code (Qld), s 1

Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, applied
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50, applied
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, applied

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
R J Christensen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Henry J and the order proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Henry J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

HENRY J: The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Townsville District Court of two offences of violence upon her former de facto husband – common assault on 7 November 2014 and grievous bodily harm on 8 November 2014.

She appeals her convictions on two grounds, namely:

1. the conviction was unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence (“ground one unreasonable verdict”); and

2. the applications judge erred in failing to exclude evidence of 000 calls made by the appellant (“ground two failure to exclude 000 calls”).

There is no substance to either ground and the appeal should be dismissed.

Ground One Unreasonable Verdict

The task of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Phillips and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCA 192
Decision Date: 5 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was convicted by a jury of common assault and grievous bodily harm. The appellant and the complainant were in a relationship at the time of the incident. The appellant assaulted the complainant with a clamp and subsequently stabbed her with a knife. The appellant elected not to give evidence at the trial and now appeals against her convictions, arguing that the jury's findings were against the evidence as a whole. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant should succeed in her appeal against the jury's findings. The appellant contended that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of 000 calls made by the complainant. The appellant argued that this evidence should have been excluded under the hearsay rule, but the court determined that the evidence fell within an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the appellant's convictions were supported by the evidence and that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the 000 call evidence, as it fell within an exception to the hearsay rule. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Phillips [2017] QCA 192
PARTIES:	R v PHILLIPS, Tammy Lee-Ann (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 325 of 2016 DC No 493 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 28 October 2016 (Durward SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 June 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J
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 by a jury of common assault and grievous bodily harm – where the appellant and the complainant were in a relationship – where the appellant assaulted the complainant with a clamp – where the appellant stabbed the complainant with a knife – where the appellant elected not to give evidence at trial – where the appellant contends that the findings of the jury were against the evidence as a whole – whether the appellant should succeed in her appeal CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – STATEMENTS AGAINST INTERESTS – ADMISSIONS – where there was a pre-trial application to exclude evidence of 000 calls made by the complainant – whether the trial judge erred by allowing the evidence – whether or not the 000 evidence came within an exception to the hearsay rule Criminal Code (Qld), s 1 Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50, applied SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, applied
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf R J Christensen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent