R v Tramsek - [2025] QCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tramsek [2025] QCA 98

PARTIES:

R
v
TRAMSEK, Jason Bronco
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 199 of 2024
DC No 139 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mount Isa – Date of Conviction: 23 August 2024; Date of Sentence: 26 August 2024 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2025

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ, Bond JA and Callaghan J

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Verdict set aside.

3.   Conviction quashed.

4.   A new trial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death – where the learned trial judge gave a direction pursuant to section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code but declined to give a direction pursuant to section 23(1)(a) – where the appellant gave evidence he “hit a bump” on the road – where the learned trial judge was not satisfied any act had occurred “independently of the defendant’s will” – whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where there was evidence concerning the appellant’s voluntary intoxication – where intoxication was not particularised by the Crown – where the defence sought to exclude all such evidence – where the learned trial judge ruled intoxication was a circumstance relevant to whether the appellant operated the vehicle dangerously – whether the admission of such evidence of the appellant’s voluntary intoxication was a wrong decision on a question of law – whether the learned trial judge’s direction as to the use of the evidence concerning the appellant’s voluntary intoxication occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether the nature of the miscarriage of justice precluded the operation of the proviso

Criminal Code (Qld), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b), s 328A(4)(a)

Brawn v The King [2025] HCA 20, applied
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572; [1992] HCA 14, cited
Maher v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 31, applied
R v Anna Rowan (a pseudonym) (2024) 278 CLR 470; [2024] HCA 9, applied
R v Clark[2014] QCA 99, cited
R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128, considered
R v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9, applied
Volz v The Queen (1990) 100 FLR 393; [1990] NTCCA 1, considered
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, applied
Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6, applied

COUNSEL:

D A Marley for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOWSKILL CJ: I…

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 Tramsek

Details

AGLC: R v Tramsek [2025] QCA 98
Case: [2025] QCA 98
Decision Date: 10 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tramsek, the appellant stood convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. The case was heard and determined in the relevant appellate court. The appellant appealed both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in several respects.

The appellant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by not instructing them in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The appellant claimed that an independent act, hitting a bump on the road, occurred, which the judge failed to consider. The court had to determine whether this omission constituted a misdirection that required a new trial. Additionally, the appellant contested the admissibility of evidence concerning his voluntary intoxication. The appellant contended that the evidence should have been excluded entirely, but the trial judge ruled it relevant to the issue of dangerous operation. The court needed to decide if this ruling was legally sound.

The court found that the trial judge's failure to properly direct the jury concerning the potential independent act was a misdirection of law. The court held that the omission likely affected the jury's consideration of the appellant's evidence, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. Consequently, the court concluded that this error warranted setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial. The court also found that the trial judge's handling of the intoxication evidence was flawed, as it allowed potentially prejudicial information without clear relevance to the core charge. This misdirection contributed to a miscarriage of justice, further justifying a new trial.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Verdict set aside.

3. Conviction quashed.

4. A new trial is ordered.

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 Tramsek [2025] QCA 98
PARTIES:	R v TRAMSEK, Jason Bronco (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 199 of 2024 DC No 139 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mount Isa – Date of Conviction: 23 August 2024; Date of Sentence: 26 August 2024 (Jarro DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 May 2025
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ, Bond JA and Callaghan J
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Verdict set aside. 3. Conviction quashed. 4. A new trial is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death – where the learned trial judge gave a direction pursuant to section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code but declined to give a direction pursuant to section 23(1)(a) – where the appellant gave evidence he “hit a bump” on the road – where the learned trial judge was not satisfied any act had occurred “independently of the defendant’s will” – whether the learned trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – where there was evidence concerning the appellant’s voluntary intoxication – where intoxication was not particularised by the Crown – where the defence sought to exclude all such evidence – where the learned trial judge ruled intoxication was a circumstance relevant to whether the appellant operated the vehicle dangerously – whether the admission of such evidence of the appellant’s voluntary intoxication was a wrong decision on a question of law – whether the learned trial judge’s direction as to the use of the evidence concerning the appellant’s voluntary intoxication occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether the nature of the miscarriage of justice precluded the operation of the proviso Criminal Code (Qld), s 23(1)(a), s 23(1)(b), s 328A(4)(a) Brawn v The King [2025] HCA 20, applied Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572; [1992] HCA 14, cited Maher v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 31, applied R v Anna Rowan (a pseudonym) (2024) 278 CLR 470; [2024] HCA 9, applied R v Clark[2014] QCA 99, cited R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128, considered R v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9, applied Volz v The Queen (1990) 100 FLR 393; [1990] NTCCA 1, considered Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, applied Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6, applied
COUNSEL:	D A Marley for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent