R v Reed - [2014] QCA 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Reed [2014] QCA 207

PARTIES:

R
v
REED, Troy William
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 287 of 2013
SC No 43 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant complained the trial judge wrongfully admitted evidence of “prior uncharged injuries” into evidence – where evidence was admitted as relevant evidence of domestic relationship – whether the evidence was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant complained the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the use that could be made of “uncharged injuries” – where the trial judge warned against the use of the evidence as evidence of propensity – where the trial judge failed to give an accompanying direction as to the purpose to which the evidence could be put – whether that failure constituted error

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PROVISO APPLIED IN PARTICULAR CASES – where the prosecution case was strong – whether regard could be had to the jury’s verdict – whether the proviso should be applied

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14, considered
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, applied
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, applied
R v Self[2001] QCA 338, considered
Roach v The Queen (2011) 242 CLR 610; [2011] HCA 12, applied
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, applied
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17, applied

COUNSEL:

V Keegan for the appellant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Henry J’s reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

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

HENRY J: The appellant pleaded not guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm (count 1) and murder (count 2). He was convicted after a five day trial and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively.

He appeals his convictions on three grounds:

“(1)The verdicts of the…

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 Reed

Details

AGLC: R v Reed [2014] QCA 207
Case: [2014] QCA 207
Decision Date: 26 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reed involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The trial judge admitted evidence of the victim’s prior uncharged injuries, which the appellant argued was improper. The appellant further contended that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the use that could be made of this evidence. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the evidence of prior injuries and the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding that evidence. The appellant argued that the evidence should not have been admitted as it had no relevance beyond suggesting a propensity to commit violence. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that the trial judge's direction to the jury did not adequately guide them on the proper use of this evidence, thus constituting an error.

The Court found that the evidence of prior injuries was relevant to the nature of the domestic relationship between the parties and was therefore properly admitted. The Court also noted that while the trial judge did not fully articulate the permissible uses of the evidence, the error was not substantial given the strength of the prosecution's case. The jury's verdict indicated they had correctly considered the evidence in the context provided. The Court applied the proviso and dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The Court's orders were to dismiss the appeal against the appellant's conviction. The decision underscored the importance of the relevance of evidence in domestic violence cases and the discretion of the trial judge in handling such matters.

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 Reed [2014] QCA 207
PARTIES:	R v REED, Troy William (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 287 of 2013 SC No 43 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant complained the trial judge wrongfully admitted evidence of “prior uncharged injuries” into evidence – where evidence was admitted as relevant evidence of domestic relationship – whether the evidence was admissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant complained the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the use that could be made of “uncharged injuries” – where the trial judge warned against the use of the evidence as evidence of propensity – where the trial judge failed to give an accompanying direction as to the purpose to which the evidence could be put – whether that failure constituted error APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PROVISO APPLIED IN PARTICULAR CASES – where the prosecution case was strong – whether regard could be had to the jury’s verdict – whether the proviso should be applied Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14, considered Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, applied Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, applied R v Self[2001] QCA 338, considered Roach v The Queen (2011) 242 CLR 610; [2011] HCA 12, applied Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, applied Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17, applied
COUNSEL:	V Keegan for the appellant M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent