The Queen v AJM - [2018] QChC 1

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v AJM [2018] QChC 1

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

AJM

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

11/17

DIVISION:

Children’s Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Judge-Alone

ORIGINATING COURT:

Children’s Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2018 – 9 February 2018

JUDGE:

Chowdhury DCJ

VERDICT:

Not guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL – GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – trial by judge sitting without a jury – whether the defendant was acting in self-defence.

COUNSEL:

S.Muir for the Crown

J.Horne for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant

The defendant, is charged that on 20 August 2015 at Woodridge in the State of Queensland, he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to Mulu Yenehun Zenebe. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to this charge, and pursuant to s.98 Youth Justice Act 1992 he has elected trial by judge alone.

The particulars of this charge provided by the prosecution, exhibit 2, were that in the course of a fight at a park at Woodridge on the night in question the defendant struck Mr Zenebe (the complainant) to the left hand causing a fracture that, if left untreated, would cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.

Evidence at the trial

The complainant was born on 13 July 1997. He knew the defendant because they used to go to the same school, and “we used to kick back together.” He said he knew the defendant for about a year and a half.

At around 6 or 7pm on the night in question he was at the house of a friend, Amos, at Trinder Park. The other persons there were Amos, Bukuru, Lue-Shane and Abdul. They were “chilling,” sitting around, talking and listening to music. He stated that he was not drinking alcohol that evening, nor was anyone else.

During the evening, the defendant telephoned Abdul, and the conversation was placed on loud speaker. “The defendant was telling us he wants to fighting and stuff, and swearing about his mum and stuff, was teasing him, and Abdul was getting angry. They were just talking about – they want to fight and stuff”. After hanging up, the defendant called back again, swearing about Abdul’s mother and calling them to come out and fight.

The complainant and his companions then drove to a park to see the defendant. They drove the complainant’s father’s car, a white Honda. There was one baseball bat in the car. Once they arrived at the park, they waited until the defendant and his brothers, and a person named “Hassan” arrived in their car.

The complainant said, “we went out of the car and they came out, but they had weapons. We didn’t have weapons, we only had one baseball bat. We left our baseball bat in the car. When they – when they had weapon we just spread out and then we….”. The complainant went on to state…

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 The Queen v AJM

Details

AGLC: The Queen v AJM [2018] QChC 1
Case: [2018] QChC 1
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, AJM, stood trial for an offence of grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by a judge sitting without a jury. The dispute centred on whether the defendant acted in self-defence when he inflicted harm on the complainant.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant acted in self-defence and whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the principles of self-defence under Australian criminal law.

The court found that the defendant had acted in self-defence, as he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm from the complainant. The judge concluded that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. The court acquitted the defendant of the charge of grievous bodily harm.

The court found in favour of the defendant, acquitting him of the charge of grievous bodily harm. The court found that the defendant acted in self-defence and that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

Orders