R v Scott

[2013] QDC 334

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Scott [2013] QDC 334

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW SCOTT

FILE NO/S:

4362/2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered ex tempore on 12 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Gladstone

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2013

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

The jury will be directed in accordance with R v Condon [2010] QCA 117.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- DEFENCES- ACCIDENT- Is the ‘event” in section 23 of the Criminal Code the actual injury suffered or grievous bodily harm

Criminal Code (Q) 1899 s 23

R v Condon [2010] QCA 117

R v Coomer [2010] QCA 6

R v Peachey [2006] QCA 162

R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138

R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333

COUNSEL:

Ms S. Hedge for the Crown

Mr D. Murray for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

Kenny and Partners for the Defendant

1. An issue has been raised in this trial as to whether, with respect to the defence of accident, the jury should be directed that the event to be considered is the rupturing/ severing of the tendon solely, or whether it is grievous bodily harm in the more general sense i.e. serious injury.  The Crown Prosecutor submits the wider direction should be given. 

1. In this regard there are a number of conflicting Court of Appeal decisions. 

1. In R v Peachey [2006] QCA 162 the Court was comprised by Jerrard JA and Chesterman and Mullins JJ. In that case, it was held at [32]:

“In part, the last direction may be more favourable to Mr Peachey … [This was a  reference to the direction that the specific injury was referred to by the trial judge] … in the sense that it requires foresight of the actual mechanism of the grievous bodily harm being suffered, whereas in R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138, the unanimous decision of this court was to the effect that it was sufficient if an ordinary person, in a defendant’s position, would have foreseen serious injuries similar to those actually incurred as a possible outcome of the defendant’s actions.”

Needless to say, such a proposition supports the Crown contention. 

1. The next decision is the case of R vCoomer [2010] QCA 6. Interestingly enough, Peachey and Stuart appear not to be referred to in Coomer. That Court was comprised by Keane and Holmes JJA and Margaret Wilson J. It was held at [27] by Keane JA:

“It is not necessary that the precise nature of the grievous bodily harm, or the precise mechanism whereby it might be inflicted, be foreseeable.  A blow of the kind struck here might not always lead to a fall with serious injuries, but it is readily apparent that injuries of the kind which occurred here might well occur.”

Again, this supports the Crown contention. 

1. Then there is the case of R v Condon [2010] QCA 117. That court was comprised by the President, Fraser and…