R v Smith - [2011] QCA 375

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2011] QCA 375

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, David Anthony
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 124 of 2011
DC No 129 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant argued there was inconsistency of evidence between witnesses – where the appellant argued that he could not have caused the injury – where the appellant said that he was dissatisfied with his counsel – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt – whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and could not be supported having regard to the evidence

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Handley [2011] QCA 361, cited
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA and the order proposed by her Honour.

WHITE JA: I have the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA and agree with her Honour’s reasons and the order that she proposes.

MARGARET WILSON AJA: The appellant was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. He has appealed against his conviction on the ground it is unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law. He appeared before this court self represented, by video link from the prison.

In the early hours of 14 May 2010 the complainant Gavin Brian Heron was admitted to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Ipswich General Hospital with a large open wound to his right upper arm above the elbow and below the shoulder. The wound was about 10 to 11 centimetres long, running down the inner and back aspect of the upper arm approaching the elbow. It was a slicing injury, through the muscle, exposing bone and nerve tissue. Surgery was required: without it the severed nerve would not have healed and the complainant would have been left with permanent loss of function in his wrist and hand.

The prosecution case was the appellant inflicted the injury in a dark alleyway in Ipswich. The alleyway ran between Brisbane Street and Limestone Street. Entered from Brisbane Street, it…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2011] QCA 375
Case: [2011] QCA 375
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith was before the court, where the appellant, Smith, was appealing his conviction for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The trial had concluded with Smith being found guilty, and he was now seeking to have his conviction overturned on the grounds of alleged errors in the trial process. The court was tasked with determining whether there was any substantial miscarriage of justice that warranted the dismissal of the appeal. Smith argued that the evidence presented was inconsistent and that he could not have been the perpetrator of the crime. Additionally, Smith expressed dissatisfaction with his legal representation during the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Smith's guilt, and whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory such that it could not be supported in light of the evidence presented. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments put forth by Smith to determine if there were any errors that substantially impacted the outcome of the trial. The court also considered Smith's dissatisfaction with his counsel but noted that this alone was insufficient grounds for a new trial unless it was demonstrated that the legal representation was inadequate to the point of depriving Smith of a fair trial.

The court found that the jury's verdict was adequately supported by the evidence presented at the trial. Despite Smith's claims of inconsistency in the evidence and his inability to have caused the injury, the court held that the jury had properly considered the evidence and concluded that Smith's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that Smith's dissatisfaction with his legal representation did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal against Smith's conviction was dismissed. The court found no substantial miscarriage of justice in the trial process and upheld the jury's verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Smith [2011] QCA 375
PARTIES:	R v SMITH, David Anthony (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 124 of 2011 DC No 129 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 November 2011
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where the appellant argued there was inconsistency of evidence between witnesses – where the appellant argued that he could not have caused the injury – where the appellant said that he was dissatisfied with his counsel – whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt – whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and could not be supported having regard to the evidence M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Handley [2011] QCA 361, cited TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf S P Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent