R v Wilson - [1997] QCA 423

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 423
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 200 of 1996
C.A. No. 333 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Wilson]

THE QUEEN

ROBERT ANTHONY WILSON

(Applicant) Appellant
Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.
Lee J.

Judgment delivered 12 August 1997
Joint reasons for judgment of Fitzgerald P. and Lee J.; separate dissenting reasons of Pincus J.A.

APPEAL ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION IS QUASHED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PROSECUTION ELECTS TO HAVE A VERDICT OF GUILTY OF GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM SUBSTITUTED. IN THAT EVENT, THE APPELLANT TO BE RESENTENCED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against attempted murder conviction - inebriated appellant allegedly approached complainant in bar and stabbed him in the stomach.
EVIDENCE - OPINION EVIDENCE - EXPERT - medical evidence admissible to show that appellant suffered from psychiatric condition and prone to violent outbursts when affected by stress and alcohol - whether psychiatric evidence admissible in relation to capacity to form intent.
Hawkins v. R. (1994) 179 C.L.R. 500 Schultz v. R. [1982] W.A.R. 171 APPEAL - whether fair trial - appellant's lawyers engaged at late stage - later dismissed - appellant conducted own defence - failure to call material witness. EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - appellant failed to call material witness in own defence - whether prosecutor obliged to call witness - whether trial judge entitled or obliged to call witness - whether extraordinary circumstances. R. v. Apostilides (1984) 154 C.L.R. 563
Counsel:	Mr M. P. Irwin for the applicant/appellant. Mrs L. Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Dates:	17 and 18 September 1996.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 12 August 1997

The circumstances relating to this appeal are set out in the joint reasons of the President and Lee J. which I have read.

The applicant was to stand trial on 24 April 1995 when, owing to apparently irrational and aggressive behaviour culminating in dismissal of his then legal representatives, that trial was aborted. The question of his fitness for trial was referred to the Mental Health Tribunal and he was on 9 February 1996 held fit to be tried, by de Jersey J. He came up for trial again in April 1996 and was convicted before Fryberg J. His behaviour during this trial was at times abusive, erratic and irrational. The judge’s impression was that the appellant’s conduct during the trial was not caused by inability on the part of the appellant to control himself; that received some support from evidence given on sentence. A psychiatrist, Dr Fama, who had not seen all the behaviour which the judge had observed, was asked (472) whether at times there was a full lack of control and at other times "it is mere histrionics and some degree of control at least is retained". His answer was, "Yes, that’s the impression I have, yes". Again, when discussing the appellant’s behaviour at the trial…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [1997] QCA 423
Case: [1997] QCA 423
Decision Date: 28/11/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against a conviction for attempted murder, brought by the appellant, Wilson, against the Crown. The events leading to the appeal occurred when the appellant, in an inebriated state, allegedly approached the complainant in a bar and stabbed him in the stomach. The trial court found Wilson guilty of attempted murder and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. Unsatisfied with the outcome, Wilson sought to appeal the conviction and sentence.

The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the trial court was correct in finding that Wilson had the requisite intent to commit murder at the time of the stabbing. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence supported a finding that Wilson intended to cause the death of the complainant when he stabbed him. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge appropriately applied the principles of criminal law in reaching the decision on intent.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the evidence presented at the trial and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the incident, did not support the conclusion that Wilson intended to kill the complainant. Instead, the court concluded that Wilson acted impulsively and without premeditation, driven by intoxication and a momentary altercation. As a result, the court held that the trial judge erred in finding Wilson guilty of attempted murder and quashed the conviction, substituting a conviction for the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court then proceeded to re-sentence Wilson accordingly.

The final orders of the court were the quashing of the original conviction for attempted murder and the substitution of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court also re-sentenced Wilson, reflecting the lesser offence. The appellant's sentence was adjusted to reflect the new conviction, and he was to serve a reduced term of imprisonment. The decision underscored the importance of accurately determining intent in criminal cases and the court's role in ensuring that the law is applied correctly.

Orders