R v Rajek - [2025] QCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rajek [2025] QCA 23

PARTIES:

R
v
RAJEK, Anthony Daniel
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2023
SC No 137 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 28 November 2023 (Callaghan J)

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ, Gotterson AJA, Muir J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant struck the complainant with a knife in the vicinity of the complainant’s uppermost chest and lower neck – where the appellant was convicted of attempted murder – where the question of intention was to be determined by inference in the absence of direct evidence – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held an intention to kill – whether the jury ought to have accepted the submission that the appellant only intended to cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict of the jury should be set aside

Criminal Code (Qld), s 306(1)(a)

AK v The Queen [2021] VSCA 165, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
SKA v the Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
Zaburoni v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 482; [2016] HCA 12, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Dickson for the appellant
J D Finch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Owens & Associates for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: The appellant, Anthony Daniel Rajek, was indicted on two alternative counts, namely, that on the 16^th of January 2022 at Brisbane City, he attempted unlawfully to kill Steven Robert Cribb (“the complainant”) in contravention of s 306(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) or that on that date and at that place, he did grievous bodily harm to the complainant with intent to do so in contravention of s 317(1)(b) and (e) thereof. He entered a plea of guilty to the alternative count which was not accepted by the Crown.
The appellant was tried on the attempt count before Justice Callaghan and a jury at the Supreme Court in Brisbane on the 27^th and 28^th of November 2023. He was found guilty of attempted murder on the second day of the trial. On the 16^th of February 2024, the appellant was formally convicted and then sentenced to imprisonment for 13 years and 6 months.
A notice of appeal against conviction was filed for the appellant on the 13^th of December 2023. At the hearing of the appeal, leave was granted to amend the sole ground of appeal to the following:
“The verdict of the jury should be set aside as it is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”
In…

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 Rajek

Details

AGLC: R v Rajek [2025] QCA 23
Case: [2025] QCA 23
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rajek, the appellant was convicted of attempted murder following an incident where he struck the complainant with a knife in the area of the chest and lower neck. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that the jury should have accepted that he only intended to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held an intention to kill, and whether the jury ought to have accepted the submission that the appellant only intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellant intended to kill the complainant. The injuries inflicted, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances surrounding the attack were all factors that the jury could reasonably consider in determining the appellant's intention. The court held that it was open to the jury to infer the appellant's intention to kill from the evidence presented, and that the jury was not required to accept the submission that the appellant only intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the conviction of the appellant for attempted murder.

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 Rajek [2025] QCA 23
PARTIES:	R v RAJEK, Anthony Daniel (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 246 of 2023 SC No 137 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 28 November 2023 (Callaghan J)
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2025
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ, Gotterson AJA, Muir J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant struck the complainant with a knife in the vicinity of the complainant’s uppermost chest and lower neck – where the appellant was convicted of attempted murder – where the question of intention was to be determined by inference in the absence of direct evidence – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held an intention to kill – whether the jury ought to have accepted the submission that the appellant only intended to cause grievous bodily harm – whether the verdict of the jury should be set aside Criminal Code (Qld), s 306(1)(a) AK v The Queen [2021] VSCA 165, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited SKA v the Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited Zaburoni v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 482; [2016] HCA 12, cited
COUNSEL:	S J Dickson for the appellant J D Finch for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Owens & Associates for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent