R v Young - [2005] QCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Young [2005] QCA 32

PARTIES:

R
v
YOUNG, Christine Lorraine
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2004
DC No 410 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA, Chesterman 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 – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where a witness inadvertently gave inadmissible evidence at trial – whether the Trial Judge erred in failing to discharge the jury under the circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – where appellant was also sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, to be served concurrently – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 271

Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427, discussed

COUNSEL:

Mr J R Hunter for the appellant
Ms S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CJ:de JERSEY I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Chesterman J. I agree that for those reasons, the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

McPHERSON JA: I have read and agree with the reasons of Chesterman J for dismissing this appeal. With reference to the application to discharge the jury because of the introduction at the trial of the testimony about what the complainant said to Ms Friend, I would add only that it seems to me that it was in any event almost certainly admissible as part of the res gestae: see R v Andrews [1987] AC 281. On any view of it, it cannot be seen as something that required the trial judge peremptorily to discharge the jury, and there was no miscarriage of justice in her not doing so.

The appeal against conviction, and the application to appeal against sentence should, for the reasons given by Chesterman J, be dismissed.

CHESTERMAN J: The appellant was tried on an indictment which alleged that, on 12 June 2002 in Brisbane, she attempted to murder Christina Christova, or in the alternative, she unlawfully wounded Christina Christova with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. A third count alleged that at the same time and place the appellant unlawfully assaulted John Michael Williams, and did him bodily harm, whilst armed with an offensive instrument. On 13 August 2004 the appellant was…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2005] QCA 32
Case: [2005] QCA 32
Decision Date: 18 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Young, appealed against both his conviction and sentence for wounding with intent and assault occasioning bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after an inadmissible piece of evidence was inadvertently presented to the jury. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the inadvertent presentation of inadmissible evidence did not warrant the discharge of the jury. The trial judge was able to direct the jury to disregard the evidence and it was unlikely that the evidence influenced the jury's decision. The court held that the trial judge did not err in this respect. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and other relevant factors in determining that the sentence was appropriate.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The appellant remained convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment for wounding with intent and two and a half years' imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm, to be served concurrently.

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 Young [2005] QCA 32
PARTIES:	R v YOUNG, Christine Lorraine (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2004 DC No 410 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA, Chesterman 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 – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where a witness inadvertently gave inadmissible evidence at trial – whether the Trial Judge erred in failing to discharge the jury under the circumstances CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – where appellant was also sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, to be served concurrently – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 271 Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427, discussed
COUNSEL:	Mr J R Hunter for the appellant Ms S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent