R v Woodward - [2017] QCA 165

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woodward [2017] QCA 165

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODWARD, Jacqueline
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 185 of 2016
DC No 68 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough – Date of Conviction: 15 June 2016

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2017

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and Philippides JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant’s counsel at trial submitted that there was no case to answer in respect of each count where the Crown led no evidence of a lack of consent – whether the evidence was such as to permit the jury to draw inferences as to an absence of consent from the factual circumstances – whether the trial judge erred in not accepting the no case submissions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the appellant and the complainants were involved in a traffic incident – where the complainants followed the appellant to her residence and entered her property – where the appellant damaged the complainants’ car with a brick and assaulted the complainant with a brick – where the appellant complained that there was no medical evidence tendered of the complainant’s injuries – where the appellant complained that not all of the CCTV footage of the traffic incident had been played to the jury – where the appellant submitted that the trial judge proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the complainant was entitled to assault the appellant and trespass on the appellant’s property – where the trial judge concluded that there was insufficient basis on which to leave self-defence or defence of property to the jury – where the appellant alleged that her counsel failed to intervene on her behalf or call any witnesses – whether any of the matters raised resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where the appellant alleged that a member of the jury was not impartial – where no issue as to any juror was raised by the appellant’s counsel – where the trial judge gave the orthodox directions in relation to impartiality to the jury in opening remarks and summing up – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW 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 Woodward

Details

AGLC: R v Woodward [2017] QCA 165
Case: [2017] QCA 165
Decision Date: 4 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Woodward, the appellant was convicted of wilful damage and assault occasioning bodily harm following a dispute after a traffic incident. The primary legal issues were whether there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to infer an absence of consent and whether the trial judge erred in not accepting the no case submissions. The court also considered whether any of the appellant's complaints amounted to a miscarriage of justice, including allegations of inadequate representation by counsel, insufficient evidence of injuries, and the failure to play all CCTV footage. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the defences of self-defence and defence of property.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer an absence of consent and that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the no case submissions. The court held that none of the appellant's complaints amounted to a miscarriage of justice, including the adequacy of legal representation and the sufficiency of evidence. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury, while more onerous for the Crown, did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's contentions regarding the impartiality of a jury member were also dismissed, as no such issue was raised during the trial.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appellant's arguments regarding the conduct of the trial and the adequacy of the evidence and directions to the jury were rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The witnesses called by the Crown at the trial were the complainant, her husband, Barry Broadfoot, the complainant’s granddaughter, Mickaela Castle-Broadfoot, and her boyfriend, Robert Avenelle. Also called were other eye witnesses Katie Griffin and Nathan Boslem. The appellant did not give or call evidence. It is fair to say that, at trial, the central issue for the jury was not so much whether the appellant had committed the acts but whether her actions were unlawful.Evidence of Barry Broadfoot Mr Broadfoot, who was 74 years of age at the time of the trial,[1] gave evidence that on 2 January 2014, he was driving his car, a silver Mitsubishi Aspire with the registration number 453 TNX, along the Bruce Highway towards Hervey Bay. Also present with him in the car were his wife (who was in the front passenger seat), his granddaughter, Mickaela Castle-Broadfoot, and Robert Avenell (who were in the rear passenger seats).[1]AB at 69.44. As he was approaching Tiaro, he stopped his car at a set of lights located just before a police station. When the light turned green, he drove off. Out of the corner of his eye, he saw a car heading towards him from the opposite side of the road.[2] He tried to move slightly to the left but was not fast enough. The other car, which was a green coloured Ford Falcon, clipped the back end of his car in the area of the rear right hand mudguard. The car was not hit very hard but he felt the car “shake” from the impact. It had not been damaged prior to the incident.[3][2]AB at 70.32-35.[3]AB at 70. Mr Broadfoot drove on until just past the police station where he was able to pull over to the side of the road. He waited there, expecting the other car to stop behind him, but instead it continued past him. He then followed the green car, making a number of turns until both vehicles were back on the Bruce Highway and ended up at the set of lights where he had previously stopped.[4] The other car then turned left, proceeded past the police station and drove into the yard of a house (which was the appellant’s residence).[4]AB at 71. Mr Broadfoot parked his car on the footpath in front of the house. The appellant got out of her car and he got out of his car. While standing on the footpath, near the gate, he said to the appellant “you hit me”. The appellant denied that she had hit his car and responded saying “you hit me” and “it’s your fault”. The appellant started screaming for the police. Mr Broadfoot said that he was still on the footpath, not in the yard. The appellant came toward him, picked up a brick and pushed the front gate against the right hand mudguard area of his car. Mr Broadfoot put his hand on the gate to push it away from his car and the appellant backed off. The appellant walked around the front of her car. Mr Broadfoot followed her and saw the keys in her car and pulled them out,[5] then returned to the footpath.[6][5]AB at 73.27.[6]AB at 74.44. The appellant moved between the two cars, “waving the brick around” and threatening to throw it at the windscreen of Mr Broadfoot’s car, yelling for the police. She then threw the brick at the windscreen, and continued yelling for the police.[7][7]AB at 72.17.

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 Woodward [2017] QCA 165
PARTIES:	R v WOODWARD, Jacqueline (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 185 of 2016 DC No 68 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough – Date of Conviction: 15 June 2016
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2017
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Fraser and Philippides JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant’s counsel at trial submitted that there was no case to answer in respect of each count where the Crown led no evidence of a lack of consent – whether the evidence was such as to permit the jury to draw inferences as to an absence of consent from the factual circumstances – whether the trial judge erred in not accepting the no case submissions CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the appellant and the complainants were involved in a traffic incident – where the complainants followed the appellant to her residence and entered her property – where the appellant damaged the complainants’ car with a brick and assaulted the complainant with a brick – where the appellant complained that there was no medical evidence tendered of the complainant’s injuries – where the appellant complained that not all of the CCTV footage of the traffic incident had been played to the jury – where the appellant submitted that the trial judge proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the complainant was entitled to assault the appellant and trespass on the appellant’s property – where the trial judge concluded that there was insufficient basis on which to leave self-defence or defence of property to the jury – where the appellant alleged that her counsel failed to intervene on her behalf or call any witnesses – whether any of the matters raised resulted in a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where the appellant alleged that a member of the jury was not impartial – where no issue as to any juror was raised by the appellant’s counsel – where the trial judge gave the orthodox directions in relation to impartiality to the jury in opening remarks and summing up – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL…