R v Sawyers - [2015] QCA 255

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sawyers [2015] QCA 255

PARTIES:

R
v
SAWYERS, Samuel Eathen
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 47 of 2015
DC No 61 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Unreported, 13 February 2015

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2015

JUDGES:

Morrison JA and Peter Lyons and Dalton JJ
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 – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm following a three day trial – where the appellant appeals against this conviction on the basis his trial was ‘unfair’ – where the appellant relied upon a defence of self-defence at trial – whether self-defence was not able to be excluded beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the conduct complained about included the manner of cross examination; cross examination eliciting hearsay evidence; failing to object to prejudicial evidence; misstatements of law; and providing a copy of a defence witnesses’ statement to the Crown – where the appellant submitted that as a result of all the conduct complained of, the evidence admitted was so prejudicial as to amount to a miscarriage of justice – whether the conduct of the appellant’s defence at trial was so flagrantly incompetent that a miscarriage of justice had occurred

R v Carter [2003] 2 Qd R 402; [2002] QCA 431, considered
R v Paddon [1999] 2 Qd R 387; [1998] QCA 248, considered

COUNSEL:

S G Bain for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale and Son Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Dalton J and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.
PETER LYONS J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Dalton J, with which I agree. I also agree with the order proposed by her Honour.
DALTON J: The appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm after a three day trial in the District Court at Rockhampton. He appeals against conviction on the basis that he had “an unfair trial” – to use the term in the notice of appeal. Counsel appearing for him on the appeal sought leave to add a further ground of appeal: that his conviction ought to be set aside because of the incompetence of his counsel at trial. Leave was given at the outset of the hearing. Counsel for the appellant abandoned the appeal against sentence.
To set aside a conviction on the basis of incompetence of trial counsel, an appellant must establish that the conduct of his defence below was so flagrantly…

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 Sawyers

Details

AGLC: R v Sawyers [2015] QCA 255
Case: [2015] QCA 255
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Sawyers, the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm following a trial in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant sought to appeal against his conviction on several grounds, including the alleged unfairness of the trial and the conduct of his defence counsel. The appellant argued that the trial was unfair because the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that self-defence was not established. The appellant also submitted that the conduct of his defence counsel was so flagrantly incompetent as to result in a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's trial was unfair, and whether the conduct of his defence counsel was so incompetent as to result in a miscarriage of justice. The court considered whether the evidence admitted at trial was so prejudicial as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the appellant's defence of self-defence was not able to be excluded beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown. The court also considered the conduct of the appellant's defence counsel, including the manner of cross-examination, the eliciting of hearsay evidence, the failure to object to prejudicial evidence, misstatements of law, and the provision of a witness statement to the Crown.

The court found that the appellant's trial was not unfair, and that the conduct of his defence counsel, while not ideal, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the evidence admitted at trial was not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the appellant's defence of self-defence was able to be excluded beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown. The court found that while the conduct of the appellant's defence counsel was not without fault, it did not reach the level of flagrant incompetence necessary to result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the appellant's conviction was properly obtained, and that there was no basis for granting a new trial or ordering an acquittal. The court found that while the conduct of the appellant's defence counsel was not without fault, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, and that the appellant's conviction should be 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 Sawyers [2015] QCA 255
PARTIES:	R v SAWYERS, Samuel Eathen (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 47 of 2015 DC No 61 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Unreported, 13 February 2015
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2015
JUDGES:	Morrison JA and Peter Lyons and Dalton JJ 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 – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of grievous bodily harm following a three day trial – where the appellant appeals against this conviction on the basis his trial was ‘unfair’ – where the appellant relied upon a defence of self-defence at trial – whether self-defence was not able to be excluded beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the conduct complained about included the manner of cross examination; cross examination eliciting hearsay evidence; failing to object to prejudicial evidence; misstatements of law; and providing a copy of a defence witnesses’ statement to the Crown – where the appellant submitted that as a result of all the conduct complained of, the evidence admitted was so prejudicial as to amount to a miscarriage of justice – whether the conduct of the appellant’s defence at trial was so flagrantly incompetent that a miscarriage of justice had occurred R v Carter [2003] 2 Qd R 402; [2002] QCA 431, considered R v Paddon [1999] 2 Qd R 387; [1998] QCA 248, considered
COUNSEL:	S G Bain for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	A W Bale and Son Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent