R v Stuart

Case [2005] QCA 138

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138

PARTIES:

R
v
STUART, Craig Edward
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 424 of 2004
DC No 1882 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Philippides J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1.    Appeal against conviction dismissed
2.    A warrant is to issue for the arrest of the appellant       but to lie in the registry for 48 hours

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where appellant found guilty after trial of doing grievous bodily harm – where admitted injuries suffered by the complainant amounted to grievous bodily harm – where accident and self-defence raised – whether trial judge misdirected jury in relation to what is required by the prosecution to negative the operation of s 23(1)(b) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANSIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where trial judge misdirected jury in relation to what is required by the prosecution to negative the operation of s 23(1)(b) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where trial judge earlier directed jury they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's act of punching the complainant was conscious and deliberate – whether jury would have convicted appellant if proper direction given – whether appellant lost a real chance of acquittal through judicial error – whether any substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if appeal dismissed

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 23(1)(b), s 668E(1A)

Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203, cited
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, cited
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209, applied
R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999, applied
Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Welldon Zande & Reddy for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. THE COURT: The appellant, Mr Stuart, was convicted following a five day jury trial of doing grievous bodily harm to Hayden Thomas Mitchell on 20 June 2002. The only ground of appeal pursued, added by leave, was as follows: when explaining the second limb of s 23(1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ("CriminalCode"), the learned trial judge erred in telling the jury that for the prosecution to succeed it must show that some injury was foreseeable but that the 'degree of injury' did not need to be foreseen. 

The evidence and issues at trial

  1. Before examining this contention in more detail it is useful to refer…

Continue reading R v Stuart

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138
Case
[2005] QCA 138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stuart, the appellant, Stuart, was found guilty of grievous bodily harm under section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The respondent suffered injuries that were accepted as grievous bodily harm, and issues of accident and self-defence were raised during the trial. Stuart appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the prosecution's burden in relation to section 23(1)(b) of the Code. Stuart contended that the misdirection led to a substantial miscarriage of justice and that he lost a real chance of acquittal due to the error. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal.

The court considered the legal issues regarding the trial judge's directions to the jury. The key issue was whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury about the prosecution's burden to prove that the appellant's act was conscious and deliberate. The court also had to determine whether the jury would have convicted Stuart if the proper direction had been given and whether the appellant lost a real chance of acquittal due to the misdirection. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there was a substantial miscarriage of justice that would warrant dismissing the appeal.

The court of appeal reviewed the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that there was indeed a misdirection. The court acknowledged that the trial judge had earlier directed the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's act of punching the complainant was conscious and deliberate. However, this direction was not consistent with the requirements of section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Despite this misdirection, the court concluded that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice, as the jury would likely have convicted Stuart even if the proper direction had been given. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and ordered that a warrant for the appellant's arrest be issued but that it lie in the registry for 48 hours. This outcome reflects the court's determination that while there was a misdirection by the trial judge, it did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant's conviction stands, and the warrant for his arrest will be issued as per the court's order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. A warrant is to issue for the arrest of the appellant but to lie in the registry for 48 hours

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.