Legal Research
Cases
R v Steindl

R v Steindl

Case [2001] QCA 434 12 October 2001

Grievous Bodily Harm

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434

PARTIES: R
v
STEINDL, Thomas William
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 80 of 2001
DC No 37 of 2001

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON: 12 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 3 August 2001

JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ASSAULTS – GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - where appellant's punch dislodged an artificial lens inserted into the complainant's eye resulting in a conviction for grievous bodily harm – appeal against conviction - where conflicting pre-trial rulings under s 592A Criminal Code as to whether an artificial lens implant in the eye constituted a "defect weakness or abnormality" for the purposes of s 23(1A) Criminal Code

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – ABUSE OF PROCESS - whether the re-opening of the initial pre-trial ruling was an abuse of process – where the re-opening of a pre-trial ruling should not be lightly undertaken – where 'substantial disagreement' with earlier ruling not enough to re-open - where a special reason is necessary before a pre-trial ruling under s 592A Criminal Code may be re-opened – where the unusual circumstances involving the interpretation of an uncertain and important point of the law with no clear authority constituted a 'special - reason' and allowed the Judge to re-open – where no forum shopping or abuse of process

INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION - where the meaning of the words "weakness, defect or abnormality" are a question of statutory construction – where the legislature did not intend to limit these words – where the words should be given their current meaning consistent with changing technology – where s 23(1A) Criminal Code is not restricted in its operation to abnormalities naturally caused.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)
Criminal Code s 23, s 23(1A), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b), s 592A, s 592A(2)(e), s 592A(3), s 592A(4), s 594, s 669A, s 669A(2)

Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v The Queen (1963-1964) 111 CLR 62, considered
R v Amituanai [1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995, considered
R v Bennett and Bennett [1999] QCA 46; CA Nos 443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999, referred to
R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, referred to
R v Charles [2001] QCA 320; CA No 66 of 2001, 2 August 2001, referred to
R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999, referred to
R v Hansen [1964] Qd R 404, considered
R v Hooper (1999) 108 A Crim R 108, referred to

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 Steindl

Details

AGLC: R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434
Case: [2001] QCA 434
Decision Date: 12 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Steindl, was convicted for grievous bodily harm after his punch dislodged an artificial lens inserted into the complainant's eye. The primary dispute in this appeal was whether the artificial lens implant in the eye constituted a "defect, weakness, or abnormality" under section 23(1A) of the Criminal Code, which would elevate the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. This appeal was heard in the court of appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the artificial lens implant was a "defect, weakness, or abnormality" as defined by section 592A of the Criminal Code. The court also needed to determine whether the reopening of a pre-trial ruling constituted an abuse of process. The interpretation of the statutory terms "defect, weakness, or abnormality" was a central point of contention, as well as the criteria for reopening pre-trial rulings.

The court examined the meaning of the terms "weakness, defect, or abnormality" within the context of modern technology and statutory construction. It held that these terms should be interpreted in their contemporary sense, not restricted to naturally occurring conditions. The court found that the artificial lens implant did indeed constitute a "defect, weakness, or abnormality" for the purposes of the statute. Additionally, the court concluded that reopening the pre-trial ruling was not an abuse of process, as the unusual circumstances involving the interpretation of an uncertain and important point of law constituted a "special reason" under the statute.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for grievous bodily harm was upheld. The court's interpretation of the statutory terms and its decision not to deem the reopening of the pre-trial ruling as an abuse of process were pivotal in reaching this outcome.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434

Most Recent Citation

R v Katsidis [2003] QCA 82

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Struhs [2025] QSC 10
Citation 1

…ington and Kuchler [2001] QCA 105, followed R v Solomon (1980) 1 NSWLR 321, followed R v Smith [1908] QWN 13, followed R v Steindl [2002] 2 Qd R 542; [2001] QCA 434, cited R v Struhs & Ors [2023] QSCPR 19, cited R v Styman; R v Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245, cited R v Succarieh [2018] 3 Qd R 104; [2017] QCA 282, cited…
R v Ngwira [2017] QCA 294
Citation 2 (Para 4)

…ithin the proviso which s 23(1A) establishes with regard to s 23(1)(b).[36] [36]Appellant’s Outline, [23] citing R v Steindl [2002] 2 Qd R 542; [2001] QCA 434.…
R v Thompson (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 53
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…His Honour referred to R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434; [2002] 2 Qd R 542, where the first trial, which was preceded by a pre-trial ruling, was ended by entry of a nolle prosequi but later a second indictment presented and, at the trial of that indictment, the pre-trial ruling was sought to be challenged and the trial…
R v. Dunning ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 176
Citation 4

…Nguyen [2001] QSC 099; [2002] 1 Qd R 426, cited R v Sheehy [2003] QCA 420; [2005] 1 Qd R 418, considered R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434; [2002] 2 Qd R 542, applied R v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159, applied R v PV; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 494; [2005] 2 Qd R 325, cited R v SAP; ex parte A-G [2005] QCA 284; [2006…
R v Katsidis [2003] QCA 82
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…referred to by Mr Glynn SC of Dodd [1998] QCA 323; CA No 241 of 1998, 17 September 1998 and Steindl [2001] QCA 315; CA No 80 of 2001, 3 August 2001, [2001] QCA 434; CA No 80 of 2001, 12 October 2001, are even more remote from the facts of this case.…
R v Sheehy [2002] QSC 470
Citation 6 (Para 5)

…The appellant in R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434 had sought a pre-trial ruling pursuant to s 592A(2)(e) of the Code as to whether an artificial lens implant in the eye of the complainant in the grievous bodily harm charge against him was a “defect, weakness or abnormality” under s 23(1A) of the Code . The trial judge…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v GB & LB [1999] QCA 46
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…pension of a two year sentence with an operational period of three years after the applicant served 113 days, also supports the orders made here. [23][1999] QCA 46; CA Nos 443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999. [24][1999[ QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999. [25][ 1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1…
R v Charles [2001] QCA 320
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…elsewhere in Australia so that no assistance can be gained from other jurisdictions. [5]Although s 23(1A) Criminal Code was considered in R v Charles [2001] QCA 320; CA No 66 of 2001, 2 August 2001 this point was not touched upon.…
R v Kennedy [2000] QCA 48
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999. [24][1999[ QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999. [25][ 1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995. [26][2000] QCA 48; CA No 355 of 1999, 28 February 2000. [27][1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999.…
R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…1; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999. [25][ 1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995. [26][2000] QCA 48; CA No 355 of 1999, 28 February 2000. [27][1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999.…
R v Camm [1999] QCA 101
Citation 5

…considered R v Bennett and Bennett [1999] QCA 46; CA Nos 443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999, referred to R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, referred to R v Charles [2001] QCA 320; CA No 66 of 2001, 2 August 2001, referred to R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999, r…
R v Amituanai [1995] QCA 80
Citation 6

…2A(4), s 594, s 669A, s 669A(2) Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v The Queen (1963-1964) 111 CLR 62, considered R v Amituanai [1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995, considered R v Bennett and Bennett [1999] QCA 46; CA Nos 443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999, referred to R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of…
R v Van Den Bemd [1994] HCA 56
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…n the body. To evaluate that submission, it is necessary to consider Van den Bemd ¸ and those cases it overturned. [8][1995] 1 Qd R 401; (1993-1994) 179 CLR 137.…
Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42
Citation 8

…to R v Kennedy [2000] QCA 48; CA No 355 of 1999, 28 February 2000, referred to R v Martyr [1962] Qd R 398, considered Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251, considered The Council of the Shire of Lake Macquarie v Aberdare County Council (1970-71) 123 CLR 327, referred to Van den Bemd v The Queen (1993-1994) 179 CLR 137, con…
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…ceptable injustice, unfairness[4] or oppression that the proceedings must be stayed because of an abuse of process. [4] Walton v Gardiner (1992-1993) 177 CLR 378, Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ, 392-396.…
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…e (1961) 108 CLR 56; Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62; Timbu Kolian (1968) 119 CLR 47 ; Kaporonovski (1973) 133 CLR 209 ; Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 and R v Morgan, CA 131 of 1999, 11 September 1999 .…
Kaporonovski v The Queen [1973] HCA 35
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…fact occurred. [28]See Vallance (1961) 108 CLR 56; Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62; Timbu Kolian (1968) 119 CLR 47 ; Kaporonovski (1973) 133 CLR 209 ; Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 and R v Morgan, CA 131 of 1999, 11 September 1999 .…
Lake Macquarie Shire Council v Aberdare County Council [1970] HCA 32
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…Abnormality" is defined as: "1. an abnormal thing, happening or feature; 2. deviation from the standard, rule or type, irregularity." [21](1970-1971) 123 CLR 327 [22]2nd revised ed, Macquarie Library, 1991.…
Timbu Kolian v The Queen [1968] HCA 66
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…the grievous bodily harm that in fact occurred. [28]See Vallance (1961) 108 CLR 56; Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62; Timbu Kolian (1968) 119 CLR 47 ; Kaporonovski (1973) 133 CLR 209 ; Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 and R v Morgan, CA 131 of 1999, 11 September 1999 .…
Mamote-Kulang v The Queen [1964] HCA 21
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…The appellant also emphasises that the term "constitutional defect" was used in both Mamote-Kulang [19] and Ward v R .[20] [19](1963-1964) 111 CLR 62. [20](1972) WAR 36.…
Vallance v The Queen [1961] HCA 42
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…present matter the “event” is the consequence to the victim, that is to say the grievous bodily harm that in fact occurred. [28]See Vallance (1961) 108 CLR 56; Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62; Timbu Kolian (1968) 119 CLR 47 ; Kaporonovski (1973) 133 CLR 209 ; Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 and R v Morgan, C…

Legislation Cited

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) 14A, 14B
3 mentions (from Para 1)
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Steindl [2001] QCA 434
PARTIES:	R v STEINDL, Thomas William (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 80 of 2001 DC No 37 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	12 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ASSAULTS – GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - where appellant's punch dislodged an artificial lens inserted into the complainant's eye resulting in a conviction for grievous bodily harm – appeal against conviction - where conflicting pre-trial rulings under s 592A Criminal Code as to whether an artificial lens implant in the eye constituted a "defect weakness or abnormality" for the purposes of s 23(1A) Criminal Code CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – ABUSE OF PROCESS - whether the re-opening of the initial pre-trial ruling was an abuse of process – where the re-opening of a pre-trial ruling should not be lightly undertaken – where 'substantial disagreement' with earlier ruling not enough to re-open - where a special reason is necessary before a pre-trial ruling under s 592A Criminal Code may be re-opened – where the unusual circumstances involving the interpretation of an uncertain and important point of the law with no clear authority constituted a 'special - reason' and allowed the Judge to re-open – where no forum shopping or abuse of process INTERPRETATION – GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION - where the meaning of the words "weakness, defect or abnormality" are a question of statutory construction – where the legislature did not intend to limit these words – where the words should be given their current meaning consistent with changing technology – where s 23(1A) Criminal Code is not restricted in its operation to abnormalities naturally caused. Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) Criminal Code s 23, s 23(1A), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b), s 592A, s 592A(2)(e), s 592A(3), s 592A(4), s 594, s 669A, s 669A(2) Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v The Queen (1963-1964) 111 CLR 62, considered R v Amituanai [1995] QCA 80; CA No 524 of 1994, 28 March 1995, considered R v Bennett and Bennett [1999] QCA 46; CA Nos 443 and 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999, referred to R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, referred to R v Charles [2001] QCA 320; CA No 66 of 2001, 2 August 2001, referred to R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June 1999, referred to R v Hansen [1964] Qd R 404, considered R v Hooper (1999) 108 A Crim R 108, referred to