Simpson v The Queen - [2006] NTCCA 14

Simpson v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 14
PARTIES:SIMPSON, MARK ANDREW

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 30 OF 2005
DELIVERED:  18 JULY 2006
HEARING DATES:  5, 6 JULY 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL & SOUTHWOOD JJ
APPEAL FROM:  JUDGE AND JURY IN PROCEEDINGS SCC No. 20327073
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW– APPEAL – DIRECTIONS TO JURY
Whether Judge erred in law in directions to jury on common purpose – section 8 – Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT) – held – Judge correct in view expressed to jury – view based on evidence of witnesses – no miscarriage of justice – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – ALTERNATIVE CHARGE

Whether common assault available as alternative charge to unlawfully causing grievous harm – section 188 – section 181 – Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT) – held – not an alternative – section 320 inapplicable – common assault by striking or touching not an offence of which causing an event is an element – section 330 inapplicable – section only applies to charges available pursuant to Division 3 of Part IX of Criminal Code – appeal dismissed.

Criminal Code Act (NT) – s 1, s 8, s 181, s 187, s 188, s 320, s 330

R v Campbell (1990) 99 FLR 107 – applied.
Davis v Bennett (2003) 175 FLR 78 – applied.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Tippett QC
Respondent:  J Adams
Solicitors:
Appellant:NT Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ang2006014
Number of pages:  10

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Simpson v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 14

No. CA 30 of 2005
BETWEEN:

MARK ANDREW SIMPSON
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL & SOUTHWOOD JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 July 2006)
THE COURT:

On 24 November 2005 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of unlawfully causing grievous harm contrary to s 181 Criminal Code (NT). The appellant, by leave granted on 4 January 2006, appealed from his conviction on two grounds, first, that the learned trial judge erred in law in his directions to the jury on common purpose pursuant to s 8 Criminal Code Act (1983)(NT), and secondly, that the learned trial judge failed to leave to the jury for decision an alternative count of common assault contrary to s 188 Criminal Code (NT).
At the conclusion of submissions on 6 July 2006 we dismissed the appeal. What follows are our reasons for doing so.
The charge of unlawfully causing grievous harm arose out of an altercation that occurred in the early hours of the morning of 19 November 2003 outside the Vic Hotel in Smith Street Mall, Darwin. The victim sustained grievous harm when he was struck to the ground. Before the jury it was conceded by the Crown and acknowledged by the trial judge…

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 Simpson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Simpson v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 14
Case: [2006] NTCCA 14
Decision Date: 18 JULY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Simpson v The Queen* was brought before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Simpson, appealed against his conviction for unlawfully causing grievous harm. The central dispute concerned the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the appellant's alleged common purpose and the availability of common assault as an alternative verdict.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in law by directing the jury that there was evidence to support a finding of common purpose under section 8 of the *Criminal Code Act 1983* (NT). Secondly, the Court had to consider whether common assault, as defined by sections 181 and 187 of the *Criminal Code Act*, was a legally available alternative charge to unlawfully causing grievous harm under section 188 of the *Criminal Code Act*.

On the issue of common purpose, the Court held that the trial judge's directions were correct, as they were based on the evidence presented by witnesses at trial. The Court found no miscarriage of justice in this regard. Regarding the alternative charge of common assault, the Court determined that it was not an available alternative to unlawfully causing grievous harm. The Court reasoned that common assault, in the form of striking or touching, does not involve the element of causing an event, which is a prerequisite for the application of sections 320 and 330 of the *Criminal Code Act*. Furthermore, the Court noted that section 330 specifically applies only to charges available under Division 3 of Part IX of the *Criminal Code Act*, which did not encompass common assault in this context. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders