Criminal law - Offences against the person - Unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm - Causation - Whether direction concerning causation in terms of harm to victim "followed directly upon" or "followed from" acts of appellant was adequate - Victim running towards appellant who claimed he merely pushed victim - Self-Defence direction to the jury adequate - Accident the main defence - Grievous bodily harm the relevant "event" - Requirements for direction on accident - Open to the jury to conclude that the force used by the appellant was such that it would have been reasonably foreseen by an ordinary person that an injury of the type which occurred would occur

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 23, s 245, s 248, s 297, s 317

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S J Jones
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid of Western Australia
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130
Campbell v R [1981] WAR 286
Director of Public Prosecutions v Daley [1980] AC 237
Ford v R [1972] WAR 36
Hooper v The Queen [2000] WASCA 394
Kaporonovksi v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209
Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630
R v Beech (1912) 7 Cr App R 197
R v Lawrie [1986] 2 Qd R 502
R v Taiters (1996) 87 A Crim R 507
Reg v Grimes and Lee (1894) 15 NSWR (L) 209
Reg v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
Reg v Pitts (1842) Car & M 284
Reg v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
Van Den Bemd v The Queen [1995] 1 Qd R 401; 70 A Crim R 489

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: On 22 November 2000 the appellant was convicted in the District Court on an indictment which alleged that on 9 June 1999 at Forrestfield the appellant unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to Robert Keith Palmer. The relevant offence is constituted by s 297 of the Criminal Code. The application for leave to appeal against conviction should have been filed by 13 December 2000, but was filed some two and a half weeks late on 2 January 2001. The appellant was not then represented and an application for an extension of time was unopposed. The extension was granted at the hearing. The grounds of appeal were originally prepared by the appellant personally. These were amended by leave at the commencement of the hearing.
At about 8.30 pm on 9 June 1999 the appellant drove four friends or acquaintances to…

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 Stanik v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stanik v The Queen [2001] WASCA 333
Case: [2001] WASCA 333
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stanik v The Queen, the appellant faced charges of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to a victim. The incident occurred when the victim ran towards the appellant, who claimed to have only pushed the victim in self-defence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the jury's direction concerning the causation of the harm and whether the self-defence direction was appropriate.

The court was required to determine whether the direction given to the jury regarding causation was adequate. Specifically, the question was whether the harm to the victim "followed directly upon" or "followed from" the appellant's acts. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the self-defence direction provided to the jury was sufficient and whether the concept of accident was properly explained. The court also needed to address whether grievous bodily harm constituted the relevant "event" for which the jury needed to be directed.

In its reasoning, the court found that the direction concerning causation was adequate, as it allowed the jury to consider whether the harm was a direct consequence of the appellant's actions. The court held that the self-defence direction was appropriate, as it allowed the jury to consider the appellant's claim of self-defence. The court also found that the direction on accident was sufficient, as it allowed the jury to consider whether the force used by the appellant was such that an injury of the type that occurred would have been reasonably foreseeable. Ultimately, the court held that the appellant's actions were not justified under self-defence, and he was found guilty of the charge. The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced according to the law.

Orders