R v Ridsdale - [2009] QCA 188

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ridsdale [2009] QCA 188

PARTIES:

R
v
RIDSDALE, David Allan
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 50 of 2009
DC No 2729 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 July 2009

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir JA and Fraser JA
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 – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant and doing her bodily harm – where appellant was acquitted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant’s husband and doing him bodily harm – where substance of complainant's evidence concerning the attack on herself was corroborated by evidence of two independent witnesses – where complainant’s evidence concerning the attack on her husband lacked similar corroboration – whether primary judge erred in failing to give a Markuleski or Robinson type direction in respect of inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence and other evidence concerning the attack on her husband

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant and doing her bodily harm – where two independent witnesses gave evidence of the attack on the complainant – where medical evidence further corroborated the complaintant’s evidence – whether infliction of bodily harm was not supported by the medical evidence – whether conviction not supported by the evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1

R v Ford[2006] QCA 142, considered
R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, considered
R v Tichowitsch [2007] 2 Qd R 462; [2006] QCA 569, distinguished
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, considered
Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; [2006] HCA 56, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copely SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

:CHIEF JUSTICE I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, for those reasons.

MUIR JA: After a trial in the District Court, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting his sister, the complainant, and doing her bodily harm. He was acquitted of the other count on the indictment, which was unlawfully assaulting the complainant's husband and doing him bodily harm. The jury also returned a verdict of "not guilty" to the alternative count of common assault in respect of the complainant's husband. The appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that:

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 Ridsdale

Details

AGLC: R v Ridsdale [2009] QCA 188
Case: [2009] QCA 188
Decision Date: 14 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ridsdale, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant and causing her bodily harm. The appellant was acquitted of similar charges related to an assault on the complainant's husband. The dispute centred on whether the primary judge misdirected the jury or failed to direct them on certain points, specifically concerning the inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and other evidence related to the attack on her husband. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the attack on the husband and the extent of bodily harm to the complainant.

The court examined whether the primary judge erred in not providing a Markuleski or Robinson type direction regarding the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence about the attack on her husband. The court also assessed whether the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, taking into account the medical evidence and the testimony of two independent witnesses who corroborated the complainant's account of the attack on her. The court noted that while the complainant's evidence concerning the attack on her husband lacked corroboration, the evidence relating to the attack on the complainant herself was sufficiently supported.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in failing to give the requested direction, as the inconsistencies did not undermine the overall reliability of the complainant's evidence regarding the assault on her. The court also concluded that the conviction was supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the corroborative testimony and medical evidence. The court held that the jury was properly directed and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant 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 Ridsdale [2009] QCA 188
PARTIES:	R v RIDSDALE, David Allan (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 50 of 2009 DC No 2729 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 July 2009
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Muir JA and Fraser JA 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 – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant and doing her bodily harm – where appellant was acquitted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant’s husband and doing him bodily harm – where substance of complainant's evidence concerning the attack on herself was corroborated by evidence of two independent witnesses – where complainant’s evidence concerning the attack on her husband lacked similar corroboration – whether primary judge erred in failing to give a Markuleski or Robinson type direction in respect of inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence and other evidence concerning the attack on her husband CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the complainant and doing her bodily harm – where two independent witnesses gave evidence of the attack on the complainant – where medical evidence further corroborated the complaintant’s evidence – whether infliction of bodily harm was not supported by the medical evidence – whether conviction not supported by the evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1 R v Ford[2006] QCA 142, considered R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, considered R v Tichowitsch [2007] 2 Qd R 462; [2006] QCA 569, distinguished Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, considered Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; [2006] HCA 56, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copely SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent