CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - assault occasioning bodily harm - particulars - whether disconformity between acts disclosed in evidence in Crown case and those particularised by Crown as constituting offence alleged - no contention by appellant that he did not assault complainant - whether appellant convicted of offence particularised - whether appellant able to contest Crown case - whether unfairness to appellant - whether indictment duplicitous - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - whether appellant acted in self-defence or in response to provocation.

Dare v. Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v. Chen (unreported, Court of Appeal, no. 129 of 1997,
judgment delivered 21 October 1997)
R v. Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128
R v. Morrow and Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309
R v. Saffron (1989) 17 NSWLR 395

Counsel:	Mr D R Lynch for the appellant Mr M C Chowdhury for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	27 November 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY CJ

Judgment delivered 11 December 1998

1 I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of

Chesterman J. I agree
with those reasons, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 11 December 1998

I agree with the reasons given by Chesterman J. for dismissing this appeal. It is to my mind plain that the Crown charged the events which led to the bodily harm as a single transaction and not as a series of blows each constituting a separate and distinct act: cf. R. v. Redgard [1956] St.R.Qd. 1, 6, where Philp J. considered that acts preliminary to sexual intercourse, if so connected with an ensuing rape as to form one transaction, should not be separately charged. There are obviously some practical limits to such an approach, but it is plain that they were not exceeded here.

The matter can in part also be tested by asking whether, if the appellant were in future to be charged with one of the other blows said by some of the witnesses to have been inflicted by him on the complainant, he could successfully plead autrefois convict. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that, in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence such a plea would succeed.
The appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - CHESTERMAN J

Judgment delivered 11 December 1998

On 18 September, 1998 the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm after trial before a judge and jury in…

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 Trifyllis

Details

AGLC: R v Trifyllis [1998] QCA 416
Case: [1998] QCA 416
Decision Date: 11/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, the case of R v Trifyllis involved an appeal against the conviction of John Theo Trifyllis for assault occasioning bodily harm. The legal issues at the heart of the appeal were whether the Crown had provided adequate particulars of the assault, whether the appellant was able to contest the Crown's case, and if the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that the Crown's particulars, though not formally ordered, sufficiently described the essential aspects of the offence. It was noted that the defence had detailed knowledge of the Crown's case from various sources, and the particulars did not alter the defence's ability to contest the case. Furthermore, the court found no basis to conclude that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the evidence presented a coherent and compelling case against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders