R v Young - [2004] QCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Young [2004] QCA 84

PARTIES:

R
v
YOUNG, Christine Lorraine

(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 361 of 2003
CA No 382 of 2003

SC No 410 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 March 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,   each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed

2.   Conviction and verdict set aside

3.   New trial ordered

4.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DEFENCE MATTERS – SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE – whether trial judge gave adequate directions to jury on self defence under s 271(1) & 271(2) of Criminal Code - whether trial judge erred by directing the jury that it was bound to accept either the complainants’ or the appellant’s version of who initiated the assault

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24, s 271(1), s 271(2)

R v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, referred to
R v Julian (1998) 100 A Crim R 430, referred to
Marwey v R (1977) 138 CLR 630, applied
R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15, referred to

Murray v R (2002) 76 ALJR 899, applied

COUNSEL:

P Callaghan for the appellant

D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McPHERSON JA: The appellant was found guilty in the Supreme Court of attempting to murder Christina Christova (count 1), and of doing bodily harm to John Williams while armed with an offensive weapon (count 3), the offences being committed on 12 June 2002. She was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years on count 1 and to a concurrent term of three years on count 3. She appeals against these convictions and applies for leave to appeal against her sentence.

For a period of four years ending late in 2001, the appellant and John Williams had been living together. Their parting was not amicable, and the physical separation was followed by disputes over money and property, which were not resolved until a deed of separation was signed late in May 2002. The final amount of $17,500 under it was paid by Williams as requested into the bank account of the appellant’s sister on 12 June 2002. He was unable to inform the appellant of his doing so because on the night of 11 June she was driving from Sydney to Brisbane, where she arrived early on the morning of the day on which the offences took place. There was evidence, which was disputed by the appellant, that by then she knew that Williams had formed a new relationship with Ms Christova, who is the complainant in count 1.

Ms Christova was staying at Williams’ unit in Brisbane when she heard the front door…

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 [2004] QCA 84
Case: [2004] QCA 84
Decision Date: 26 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Young involved a legal dispute between the respondent, the Crown, and the appellant, the accused, concerning a criminal charge. The appellant was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm and was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge provided adequate directions to the jury on the legal concept of self-defence as outlined in sections 271(1) and 271(2) of the Criminal Code. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that they were bound to accept either the complainants' or the appellant's version of events regarding who initiated the assault.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on self-defence were adequate and whether the instructions were clear and precise enough to allow the jury to properly apply the relevant legal principles. The court also examined the trial judge's direction that the jury must accept either the complainants' or the appellant's version of who initiated the assault, which could potentially have influenced the jury's decision-making process. The court found that the trial judge did not give adequate directions to the jury on self-defence and that the instruction to accept either version of events regarding who initiated the assault was erroneous. This error could have led to an unfair trial, as it restricted the jury's ability to properly consider the evidence and make an impartial decision.

Given the errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction and verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered. The court also dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence, as it found that the sentence imposed was not excessive or manifestly unjust. Consequently, the orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the conviction and verdict set aside, a new trial ordered, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction and verdict set aside

3. New trial ordered

4. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 [2004] QCA 84
PARTIES:	R v YOUNG, Christine Lorraine (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 361 of 2003 CA No 382 of 2003 SC No 410 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 March 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Conviction and verdict set aside 3. New trial ordered 4. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – DEFENCE MATTERS – SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE – whether trial judge gave adequate directions to jury on self defence under s 271(1) & 271(2) of Criminal Code - whether trial judge erred by directing the jury that it was bound to accept either the complainants’ or the appellant’s version of who initiated the assault Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24, s 271(1), s 271(2) R v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589, referred to R v Julian (1998) 100 A Crim R 430, referred to Marwey v R (1977) 138 CLR 630, applied R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15, referred to Murray v R (2002) 76 ALJR 899, applied
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent