Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-12-07|Before: McPherson and Thomas JJA, Jones JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
McPherson and Thomas JJA, Jones JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE
PERSON – grievous bodily harm with intent – where
appellant and
complainant proffered different accounts of relevant chain of events –
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THEPERSON – grievous bodily harm with intent – whereappellant andcomplainant proffered different accounts of relevant chain of events –where complainant shot in leg and hiton side of head with gun – whereappellant and complainant both under influence of alcohol – wherecomplainant also underinfluence of marijuana – where weapon notlocatedCRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TOADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSESANDACCUSED PERSONS – whether judge erred in admitting evidence of appellantin cross-examination as to whether another earlierwitness had lied in herevidence – whether such cross-examination was improper and contravenedprinciples established in R v Palmer CRIMINAL LAW –JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – SUMMING-UP –whether trial judge erred in failingto direct jury in relation to the
complainant’s evidence in cross-examination that the appellant had used
methylamphetamine
“speed” – where counsel at trial made no
request for direction – circumstances in which trial judge obligated
to
give directionsCRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - grievous bodily harm with intent - where appellant and complainant proffered different accounts of relevant chain of events - where complainant shot in leg and hit on side of head with gun - where appellant and complainant both under influence of alcohol - where complainant also under influence of marijuana - where weapon not located
[2]
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS - whether judge erred in admitting evidence of appellant in cross-examination as to whether another earlier witness had lied in her evidence - whether such cross-examination was improper and contravened principles established in R v Palmer
[3]
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURIES - SUMMING-UP - whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury in relation to the complainant's evidence in cross-examination that the appellant had used methylamphetamine "speed" - where counsel at trial made no request for direction - circumstances in which trial judge obligated to give directions
[4]
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURIES - SUMMING-UP - whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury in relation to the appellant's intoxication - where trial counsel prior to addressing jury agreed that intoxication in relation to intent was not in issue - where question of intoxication also raised in relation to whether alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter available to jury - where trial judge directed jury that intoxication was not in issue - whether trial judge had a duty to direct in relation to intoxication
[5]
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES - whether alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter available to jury - whether appellant intended to commit act - whether evidence supports a deliberate act - whether "all or nothing" case on evidence
[6]
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES - sentencing - where appellant sentenced to nine years imprisonment with serious violent offender declaration - whether serious violent offender declaration appropriate - whether serious violent offender declaration renders sentence manifestly excessive