R v Warwick - [2014] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Warwick [2014] QCA 101

PARTIES:

R
v
WARWICK, Anthony Scott Roy
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 117 of 2013
SC No 554 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant found guilty of malicious act with intent – where the appellant argued the jury should have rejected the complainant’s evidence because of implausibilities and inconsistencies – where complainant gave evidence that he was stabbed by the appellant – where the complainant’s evidence contradicted the appellant’s evidence – where the evidence of other witnesses was consistent in some respects with the complainant’s evidence – where scientific evidence was consistent with the complainant’s evidence – whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGING AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the jury retired to consider their verdict – where one juror sought to be excused due to an unbreakable personal commitment – where the juror was discharged and the remaining 11 jurors continued deliberations – where the jury reached a guilty verdict – whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of not discharging the entire jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was 35 years old – where the applicant had a significant prior criminal history – where the applicant stabbed the complainant with a knife and attempted to stab him again – where the complainant suffered a life threatening injury – where the seriousness of the injury and circumstances of the attack were treated as aggravating factors – where the sentence was reduced by 12 months for time already spent in custody on another sentence and four months for the manner in which the applicants instructions facilitated the trial – where the applicant sentenced to eight years and eight months imprisonment and a serious violent offence declaration made – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, considered
R v Thompson [1983] 1 Qd R 224, considered
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of…

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 Warwick

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick [2014] QCA 101
Case: [2014] QCA 101
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick, the appellant was found guilty of a malicious act with intent. The appellant argued that the jury should have rejected the complainant's evidence due to perceived implausibilities and inconsistencies. The complainant testified that they were stabbed by the appellant, and the complainant's account directly contradicted the appellant's version of events. However, the evidence of other witnesses was consistent with the complainant's account in some respects, and scientific evidence also aligned with the complainant's testimony. The appellant sought to appeal the conviction on the basis that it was unreasonable or insupportable considering the evidence.

The court considered whether the jury's decision was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant contended that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence should have led the jury to reject it entirely. The court, however, found that the jury was entitled to assess the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court determined that the conviction was not unreasonable or insupportable, and thus, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Further, the appellant challenged the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appellant had a significant prior criminal history and had stabbed the complainant, causing a life-threatening injury. The court treated the seriousness of the injury and the circumstances of the attack as aggravating factors. The sentence was reduced by 12 months for time already spent in custody on another sentence and by four months for the manner in which the appellant's instructions facilitated the trial. The appellant was sentenced to eight years and eight months imprisonment and a serious violent offence declaration was made. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

ORDERS:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 Warwick [2014] QCA 101
PARTIES:	R v WARWICK, Anthony Scott Roy (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 117 of 2013 SC No 554 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant found guilty of malicious act with intent – where the appellant argued the jury should have rejected the complainant’s evidence because of implausibilities and inconsistencies – where complainant gave evidence that he was stabbed by the appellant – where the complainant’s evidence contradicted the appellant’s evidence – where the evidence of other witnesses was consistent in some respects with the complainant’s evidence – where scientific evidence was consistent with the complainant’s evidence – whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGING AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the jury retired to consider their verdict – where one juror sought to be excused due to an unbreakable personal commitment – where the juror was discharged and the remaining 11 jurors continued deliberations – where the jury reached a guilty verdict – whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of not discharging the entire jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was 35 years old – where the applicant had a significant prior criminal history – where the applicant stabbed the complainant with a knife and attempted to stab him again – where the complainant suffered a life threatening injury – where the seriousness of the injury and circumstances of the attack were treated as aggravating factors – where the sentence was reduced by 12 months for time already spent in custody on another sentence and four months for the manner in which the applicants instructions facilitated the trial – where the applicant sentenced to eight years and eight months imprisonment and a serious violent offence declaration made – whether sentence was manifestly excessive M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, considered R v Thompson [1983] 1 Qd R 224, considered SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of…