R v Rowlands - [2005] VSCA 255

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 21 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
IVAN FRANCIS ROWLANDS

---

JUDGES:	EAMES, NETTLE and ASHLEY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 November 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 255

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Causing injury intentionally – Affray – Identification evidence – Whether judge’s directions inadequate – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Ryan	Mr S. Carisbrooke Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr S. Johns	Balmer & Associates

EAMES, J.A.:

For the reasons given by Ashley, J.A., I agree the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

NETTLE, J.A.:

I agree with Ashley, J.A. for the reasons which his Honour gives that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

ASHLEY, J.A.:

Statement of the case

This is an application by Ivan Rowlands for leave to appeal against convictions for affray (one count – count 1) and causing injury intentionally (one count – count 2) which were entered after trial in the County Court in November 2004[1].
[1]The applicant was sentenced, after a plea in mitigation, on 27 January 2005, to a total effective sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. A declaration was made in respect of pre-sentence detention. I note these matters for completeness only. They are of no relevance to the appeal.

There are two grounds of appeal, which are as follows:

“1.The trial miscarried by reason of the learned trial judge’s having failed adequately to direct the jury on the identification evidence of the witness FAWKNER (sic). In particular, the judge erred by not, inter alia, adequately or at all, and with his imprimatur:
(a) relating his directions to the evidence;
(b)drawing the jury’s attention to the weaknesses in the evidence;
(d) isolating and identifying for the jury those matters which, reasonably assessed, were capable of undermining the reliability of the evidence; and
(e)directing that identification from police photographs is undesirable and may be such as to make it dangerous to rely upon.

2.The verdicts of the jury were unsafe and unsatisfactory, since a properly instructed and reasonable jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the applicant.”

The applicant was presented on the two charges of which he was convicted. At the trial, only two witnesses were called viva voce for the Crown, John Faulkner and Hugh Esler. By consent, the prosector read a doctor’s statement into evidence. The accused man did not give evidence. Neither did he call any witnesses.

The gist of the prosecution case was as follows: in the early hours of Saturday 20 September 2003 two ambulance officers, Messrs Faulkner and Esler, were called to attend an emergency at an address at Bacchus Marsh. It had been reported that a man had fallen from a first-floor balcony and was unconscious.…

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 Rowlands

Details

AGLC: R v Rowlands [2005] VSCA 255
Case: [2005] VSCA 255
Decision Date: 4 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Rowlands to appeal against his conviction for causing injury intentionally, affray, and related charges. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider whether the judge's directions to the jury were inadequate, and whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Rowlands was convicted following a brawl where he and several others assaulted another individual, resulting in serious injuries. Rowlands argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were insufficient, particularly concerning the requirements for a finding of intent, and that the verdict was therefore unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The legal issues before the court centred on the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the elements of the offence of causing injury intentionally and the associated requirement of intent. Rowlands also contended that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the inadequacy of the directions. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions were sufficient to enable the jury to properly consider the evidence and reach a safe and satisfactory verdict. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory in light of the alleged shortcomings in the judge's directions.

The High Court found that the trial judge's directions were adequate to enable the jury to properly consider the evidence and reach a verdict. The court held that the directions correctly explained the legal principles and provided the jury with sufficient guidance to assess the evidence and determine the necessary intent for the charges. Consequently, the court concluded that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that there were no errors in the trial that warranted an appeal, and that Rowlands' convictions were properly upheld.

The final orders of the court were that Rowlands' application for leave to appeal against his conviction was dismissed. The convictions for causing injury intentionally, affray, and related charges were therefore upheld, and Rowlands' appeal was rejected. The High Court determined that the trial judge's directions were adequate and that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, resulting in the dismissal of the application.

Orders