R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557

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

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

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

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

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

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

R v Beer [2000] QCA 193 considered

R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206; [2000] 2 Qd R 183 considered

R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450 considered

R v Palmer [1998] HCA 2; (1998) 193 CLR 1 considered

R v Rehavi [1998] QCA 157; [1999] 2 Qd R 640 distinguished

R v Rose (1996) 87 A Crim R 109 considered

R v Uhrig (unreported Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW) 24 October 1996)

R v Willersdorf [2001] QCA 183; CA 333 of 2000, 15 May 2001 considered

Van den Hoek v The Queen [1986] HCA 76; (1986) 161 CLR 158 considered

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent