JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, T FORREST and EMERTON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 45
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Garratt (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 21 December 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Recklessly cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – Complicity – Joint criminal enterprise – Whether verdicts unsafe – Whether evidence established ‘agreement, arrangement or understanding’ – Blow with broken bottle severed victim’s temporal artery – Whether ‘serious injury’ – Whether relevant that prompt medical intervention stopped bleeding – Whether use of weapon ‘planned in advance’ – Verdicts reasonably open – No error in trial judge’s jury directions – Leave to appeal refused on both applications – Crimes Act 1958 ss 15, 15A – Farha v The Queen [2018] VSCA 310, Peters v The Queen [No 2] [2019] VSCA 292 considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘serious injury’, ‘an injury that endangers life’, ‘planned in advance’.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant, Sarjeant	Dr M FitzGerald	Doogue + George Defence Lawyers
For the Applicant, Garratt	Mr D A Dann QC	Slater & King Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P L Bourke	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
T FORREST JA
EMERTON JA:

Troy Sarjeant and Jake Garratt applied for leave to appeal against their convictions arising from an incident at the Commercial Hotel, Broadford on
1 October 2016. Both men were convicted of one charge of recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, contrary to s 15A of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’). Sarjeant was sentenced by a judge of the County Court to seven years’ imprisonment with a minimum term before parole eligibility of five years. His alleged accomplice, Garratt, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of two years and six months.

Sarjeant’s grounds of appeal are:

Ground 1:The trial miscarried as the Learned Trial Judge erred in his directions to the jury in relation to proof of a serious injury.
Particulars
(a)The Learned Trial Judge erred in directing the jury to assess the injury as if medical intervention had not occurred.
(b)The Learned Trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury to take into account the evidence of medical intervention in determining whether, at any point, the victim’s life was endangered.

Ground 2:The jury’s verdict on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, in that the evidence was not capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the victim had suffered a serious injury.

Garratt’s grounds of appeal are:

Ground 1:A substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred in circumstances where the jury were…

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 Sarjeant v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Troy Ian Sarjeant v The Queen [2020] VSCA 45
Case: [2020] VSCA 45
Decision Date: 11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sarjeant, appealed against his conviction for recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The incident involved the victim suffering severe injuries after a blow from a broken bottle, which severed his temporal artery. The appellant argued that the verdict was unsafe and that the evidence did not establish an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with his co-appellant, who was also convicted. The appellant also contested whether the injury was 'serious', considering the prompt medical intervention, and whether the use of the weapon was planned in advance. The appeal was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which had to determine the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the jury directions.

The legal issues before the court included whether the verdicts were reasonably open on the evidence, and whether there was an error in the trial judge's jury directions. The court also had to decide if the injury was indeed 'serious', and if the weapon's use was planned in advance. The definitions of 'serious injury' and 'planned in advance' were examined in light of relevant case law. The appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider whether the injury was serious, and if the use of the weapon was planned in advance.

The court found that the verdicts were reasonably open on the evidence and that the trial judge's jury directions were correct. The court held that the injury was 'serious' as it endangered the victim's life, and the fact that prompt medical intervention stopped the bleeding did not negate the severity of the injury. The use of the weapon was deemed to have been planned in advance, aligning with the concept of a joint criminal enterprise. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish complicity, and the verdicts were not unsafe. Both applications for leave to appeal were refused.

The court did not grant leave to appeal on both applications, affirming the conviction. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the terms 'serious injury' and 'planned in advance', and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The definitions and principles discussed in Farha v The Queen and Peters v The Queen were considered in reaching the outcome.

Orders