R v Wiedman - [2019] QCA 71

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wiedman [2019] QCA 71

PARTIES:

R
v
WIEDMAN, David Gregory
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2018
DC No 89 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 14 September 2018 (Chowdhury DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Bowskill J

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Conviction set aside.

3.   Order that there be a retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant fired an arrow from a compound bow which ricocheted off a pole and struck the complainant on the chin, causing an injury that constituted grievous bodily harm – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm – where an issue at trial was whether the appellant held the requisite intention – where the complainant gave evidence to the effect that the appellant had aimed the arrow at him – where the appellant gave evidence that he aimed the arrow at the pole – where the appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported on the evidence –whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held the requisite intention

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm – where the learned trial judge told the jury that he would direct them about “a possible alternative verdict” of “grievous bodily harm without an intention” – where no objection was taken by counsel as to the summing up – whether the learned trial judge directed the jury on the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm without an intention – whether the appellant was deprived of a real chance of acquittal on the one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm

Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited

COUNSEL:

N V Weston for the appellant
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The appellant and Mr Cameron Boyd had been friends for some years. On 17 September 2017 Mr Boyd was at the appellant’s house and harsh words…

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 Wiedman

Details

AGLC: R v Wiedman [2019] QCA 71
Case: [2019] QCA 71
Decision Date: 3 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wiedman, the appellant faced charges following an incident where an arrow he fired from a compound bow ricocheted off a pole and struck the complainant on the chin, resulting in grievous bodily harm. The appellant was convicted of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm with intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm. The central issue at trial was whether the appellant had the requisite intention to cause harm to the complainant. The complainant testified that the arrow was aimed at him, while the appellant claimed he had aimed at the pole. The appellant contested his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.

The court considered whether, based on the entire body of evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held the requisite intent. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the appellant's intention to cause grievous bodily harm to the complainant, leading to a conclusion that the verdict was unreasonable. Additionally, the court addressed whether the trial judge's summing up, which mentioned a possible alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm without an intention, constituted a misdirection or non-direction. The court determined that the trial judge's comments did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial, as no objection was raised at the time.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The court ordered a retrial to allow for a proper consideration of the evidence and the issue of intent. This decision underscores the importance of clear and unequivocal evidence in establishing the requisite intent for a conviction of grievous bodily harm with intent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Conviction set aside.

3. Order that there be a retrial.

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 Wiedman [2019] QCA 71
PARTIES:	R v WIEDMAN, David Gregory (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 244 of 2018 DC No 89 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 14 September 2018 (Chowdhury DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	3 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Bowskill J
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Conviction set aside. 3. Order that there be a retrial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant fired an arrow from a compound bow which ricocheted off a pole and struck the complainant on the chin, causing an injury that constituted grievous bodily harm – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm – where an issue at trial was whether the appellant held the requisite intention – where the complainant gave evidence to the effect that the appellant had aimed the arrow at him – where the appellant gave evidence that he aimed the arrow at the pole – where the appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported on the evidence –whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant held the requisite intention APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm – where the learned trial judge told the jury that he would direct them about “a possible alternative verdict” of “grievous bodily harm without an intention” – where no objection was taken by counsel as to the summing up – whether the learned trial judge directed the jury on the alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm without an intention – whether the appellant was deprived of a real chance of acquittal on the one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with an intent to maim, disable or disfigure, or to do some grievous bodily harm Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
COUNSEL:	N V Weston for the appellant C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent