Legal Research
Cases
R v Shevlin

R v Shevlin

Case [2013] ACTSC 88 17 May 2013

Intoxicated Self-Defence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN V JOSEPH MICHAEL SHEVLIN
[2013] ACTSC 88 (17 May 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – general matters – criminal liability and capacity – defences – intoxicated self-defence – whether belief held – whether reasonable belief where intoxication

CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – definition and origin of ‘inflict’ – definition of recklessness – definition of grievous bodily harm

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 24
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 43, 46
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 31, 33

P J Richardson (ed), Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, 1999)

Beer v McCann; Ex parte McCann (1991) 57 A Crim R 101
Blackwell v The Queen (2011) 208 A Crim R 392
Dal Cortivo v The Queen (2010) 204 A Crim R 55
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1961] AC 290
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Gibbs v Willis [2013] ACTSC 26
J A v Goldsmith [2004] ACTSC 79
R v Britten [2011] ACTSC 49
R v Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556
R v Cameron [2001] ACTSC 57
R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137
R v Lee [2001] ACTSC 133
R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282
R v Morrison; Ex parte West [1998] 2 Qd R 79
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
R v Neish[No 2] [2013] ACTSC 24
R v Perks (1986) 41 SASR 335
R v Salisbury [1976] VR 452
R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577
Scatchard v The Queen (1987) 27 A Crim R 136
Standishv The Queen (1991) 60 A Crim R 364
Vann v Palmer [2001] ACTSC 12
Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) (1987) 162 CLR 645

No. SCC 122 of 2009
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 17 May 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 122 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R
v
JOSEPH MICHAEL SHEVLIN

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  17 May 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

Joseph Michael Shevlin is not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Wayne Anthony Maloney.

Joseph Michael Shevlin is not guilty of assaulting Wayne Anthony Maloney occasioning him actual bodily harm.

Joseph (“Joe”) Michael Shevlin, the accused, was out drinking on the evening of Saturday 23 August 2008 when, early the next morning he was involved in an altercation with Wayne Anthony Maloney.

As a result, Mr Shevlin was, on 24 August 2008, arrested and he appeared in the ACT Magistrates Court. On 23 March 2009, he was committed for trial to this Court on two charges.

On 1 April 2009, he signed an election under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) to be tried by a judge alone.

On 3 June 2009, an indictment was filed containing two counts as follows:
THAT on the 24th day of August…

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 Shevlin

Details

AGLC: R v Shevlin [2013] ACTSC 88
Case: [2013] ACTSC 88
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Shevlin involved a defendant, Shevlin, who was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred around whether Shevlin's intoxication could negate his capacity to form the requisite belief for self-defence, and whether the harm inflicted was properly categorised as "inflicted" under the criminal code. The High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving these issues.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether a person could successfully claim self-defence if they were intoxicated at the time of the incident, and whether the harm caused was sufficiently "inflicted" to constitute the offence. Specifically, the court had to determine if intoxication could preclude the formation of a reasonable belief necessary for self-defence, and if the act of causing harm, while intoxicated, could be classified as "inflicting" grievous bodily harm under the relevant statute.

In its decision, the court found that intoxication did not necessarily preclude the defendant from forming a reasonable belief required for self-defence, provided that the belief was genuinely held. The court held that a person could still act in self-defence even if their perception was influenced by intoxication, so long as the belief was honest. Regarding the term "inflict", the court clarified that it did not require an active application of force, but rather that the harm resulted from the defendant's actions. Additionally, the court reiterated that recklessness in the context of inflicting grievous bodily harm involved a high degree of negligence, aligning with the statutory definition.

The court ultimately upheld the conviction, affirming that Shevlin's actions, despite his intoxication, constituted the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The reasoning was based on the finding that Shevlin held a genuine belief in the need for self-defence and that the harm was a direct result of his actions, fulfilling the criteria of the offence.

Orders