Standish v The Queen - [1991] TASSC 83

Serial No 68/1991
List "A"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Standish v R [1991] TASSC 83; A68/1991

PARTIES:  STANDISH, James Edward Cobden
  v
  R

FILE NO/S:  CCA 19/1991
DELIVERED ON:  4 September 1991
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Wright, Zeeman and Slicer JJ

Judgment Number: A68/1991
Number of paragraphs: 75

Serial No 68/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 19/1991

JAMES EDWARD COBDEN STANDISH v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WRIGHT J
ZEEMAN J
SLICER J
4 September 1991

Order of the Court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Serial No 68/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 19/1991

JAMES EDWARD COBDEN STANDISH v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WRIGHT J
4 September 1991

The appellant appeals against his conviction for wounding Mr Williams. Mr Williams was wounded when he interposed his hand between the appellant and the appellant's wife. At the time the appellant was attempting to stab his wife. Mr Williams received a lacerated hand. Before these events took place the appellant had been drinking heavily and had taken drugs. He had also gone to his wife's home and inflicted a number of wounds upon her with the same knife.

He was indicted and convicted upon counts of aggravated burglary in respect of his wife's home, and committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm to his wife. He was also indicted for wounding one Sarah Buchanan, but on this count he was convicted of assault only.

The Crown case against the accused in respect of the fourth count, that of wounding Mr Williams, was based upon the proposition that the accused was wielding the knife recklessly at the time that he was trying to stab his wife and that, although he did not specifically intend to wound Mr Williams, he was thus guilty of unlawful wounding under s172 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code. It was argued by counsel for the appellant that the learned trial judge was in error in failing to direct the jury that they could consider the accused's state of intoxication in determining whether or not he was sufficiently aware of his surroundings and attendant circumstances to foresee the likelihood of harm being caused to some person other than his wife. It was submitted that the provisions of s17 of the Criminal Code and the limitations placed upon the operation of that section by decisions such as Snow and Palmer were not such as to preclude the jury from considering whether the accused was aware of Mr Williams' presence. It was submitted, if as a consequence of his intoxication, he was unable to appreciate, or failed to appreciate, that Mr Williams was present and likely to intervene, it could not be said that he was subjectively reckless in striking out towards his wife with the knife as he did. It was submitted that s17 deals only with the effect of intoxication upon the question of intent. It does not deal with knowledge or…

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 Standish v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Standish v The Queen [1991] TASSC 83
Case: [1991] TASSC 83
Decision Date: 4 September 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Standish v The Queen, the appellant James Edward Cobden Standish appealed against his conviction for wounding Mr Williams, who intervened to prevent Standish from attacking his wife. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury to consider Standish's state of intoxication in assessing his knowledge of the potential for others to intervene. The appellant argued that intoxication could be relevant in determining whether he was aware of the presence of others who might intervene. However, the court found that the trial judge's direction was correct, and that the appellant's state of intoxication did not affect his awareness of the potential for intervention. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's conviction was correct under s13(3) of the Criminal Code, which deals with cases where an individual intends to commit an offence but causes an unforeseen result. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

Orders