R v Woods - [2018] QCA 167

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woods [2018] QCA 167

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODS, Storm Danyon
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 277 of 2017
DC No 362 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 10 November 2017 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2018

JUDGES:

Morrison JA and North and Henry JJ

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed in respect of count 1 but allowed in respect of count 2.

2.   The conviction on count 2 is quashed.

3.   The appellant is to be re-tried on count 2 (unless it is discontinued).

4.   The respondent will, within four weeks of these orders, inform the appellant’s legal representatives of whether it intends to proceed with the retrial of the appellant in respect of count 2 on the indictment.

5.   Within six weeks of these orders, the parties will exchange and file written submissions in respect of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence including:

a)   what course ought be taken regarding the timing of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence in the event that the prosecution intends to retry the appellant on count 2;

b)   supplementary submissions as to sentence range in light of the quashing of the conviction on count 2 and as to whether Ms Hansen’s injuries can or should be taken into account for the purpose of sentence on count 1.

6.   The parties will exchange and file any written submissions in reply within seven weeks of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of unlawful wounding – whether the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury on s 23 and s 289 Criminal Code

Criminal Code (Qld), s 23, s 289

Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 93; [2002] HCA 26, discussed
R v Reid[2018] QCA 63, cited

COUNSEL:

J A Greggery QC for the appellant/applicant
M R Byrne QC, and M L Franklin, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillip Bovey and Co Solicitors for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Henry J and the orders his Honour proposes.
NORTH J: The comprehensive review of the evidence and the material parts of the learned trial judge’s summing up by Henry J permit me to rely upon it and avoid repetition.
The only witness who gave evidence of observing the motion or actions made by the appellant when holding the knife was the witness Crick. He described the motion as a “thrusting”[1] and also said that the appellant was “pushing the knife straight forward into Mr Robinson”.[2] In both her Honour’s…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: R v Woods [2018] QCA 167
Case: [2018] QCA 167
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the appellant, Woods, against his conviction by a jury on one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of unlawful wounding. The case was heard in the court of appeal where the appellant argued that the primary judge had erred in not directing the jury on sections 23 and 289 of the Criminal Code. The appellant claimed that these omissions constituted a misdirection or non-direction, which significantly affected the jury’s deliberations and his conviction.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's failure to direct the jury on sections 23 and 289 of the Criminal Code amounted to a misdirection or non-direction that could warrant a new trial. The court considered whether these omissions were significant enough to have influenced the jury's decision-making process, potentially affecting the fairness and outcome of the trial. The appellant argued that the misdirection or non-direction undermined the integrity of the trial and necessitated a retrial on count 2 of the indictment.

The court found that while the misdirection or non-direction regarding section 23 did not have a significant effect on the conviction for grievous bodily harm, the failure to direct on section 289 did affect the conviction for unlawful wounding. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal in respect of the grievous bodily harm conviction but allowed it in respect of the unlawful wounding conviction. The conviction on count 2 was quashed, and the appellant was to be retried on this count unless it was discontinued. The court ordered that the respondent must inform the appellant’s legal representatives within four weeks of the decision whether it intended to proceed with the retrial. Additionally, the court directed that the parties exchange and file written submissions regarding the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence within six weeks, with any reply submissions to follow within the next seven weeks.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed in respect of count 1 but allowed in respect of count 2.

2. The conviction on count 2 is quashed.

3. The appellant is to be re-tried on count 2 (unless it is discontinued).

4. The respondent will, within four weeks of these orders, inform the appellant’s legal representatives of whether it intends to proceed with the retrial of the appellant in respect of count 2 on the indictment.

5. Within six weeks of these orders, the parties will exchange and file written submissions in respect of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence including:

a) what course ought be taken regarding the timing of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence in the event that the prosecution intends to retry the appellant on count 2;

b) supplementary submissions as to sentence range in light of the quashing of the conviction on count 2 and as to whether Ms Hansen’s injuries can or should be taken into account for the purpose of sentence on count 1.

6. The parties will exchange and file any written submissions in reply within seven weeks of these orders.

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 Woods [2018] QCA 167
PARTIES:	R v WOODS, Storm Danyon (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 277 of 2017 DC No 362 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 10 November 2017 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	27 July 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2018
JUDGES:	Morrison JA and North and Henry JJ
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed in respect of count 1 but allowed in respect of count 2. 2. The conviction on count 2 is quashed. 3. The appellant is to be re-tried on count 2 (unless it is discontinued). 4. The respondent will, within four weeks of these orders, inform the appellant’s legal representatives of whether it intends to proceed with the retrial of the appellant in respect of count 2 on the indictment. 5. Within six weeks of these orders, the parties will exchange and file written submissions in respect of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence including: a) what course ought be taken regarding the timing of the disposition of the application for leave to appeal sentence in the event that the prosecution intends to retry the appellant on count 2; b) supplementary submissions as to sentence range in light of the quashing of the conviction on count 2 and as to whether Ms Hansen’s injuries can or should be taken into account for the purpose of sentence on count 1. 6. The parties will exchange and file any written submissions in reply within seven weeks of these orders.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of unlawful wounding – whether the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury on s 23 and s 289 Criminal Code Criminal Code (Qld), s 23, s 289 Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 93; [2002] HCA 26, discussed R v Reid[2018] QCA 63, cited
COUNSEL:	J A Greggery QC for the appellant/applicant M R Byrne QC, and M L Franklin, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Phillip Bovey and Co Solicitors for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent