Citation: REGINA v Timothy James COATES [2002] NSWCCA 441
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 6 December 2002
Judge(s): Sully J, Dunford J, Bell J (Bell J delivering the principal judgment)
Background
The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Lismore of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, following a seven-day jury trial before McGuire DCJ. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The conviction arose from an incident on 16 December 2000 at Ulmarra, where the appellant struck the complainant, a former partner of the appellant's current partner, about the head with a large piece of wood, causing a fractured skull.
The background to the assault involved an apprehended violence order obtained by the appellant's partner against the complainant, allegations of ongoing harassment, and a series of events on the day in question that culminated in a confrontation at a local showground. Witnesses gave evidence that the complainant had his back to the appellant when he was struck, that the complainant was already being assaulted by the appellant's partner at the time, and that the appellant struck the complainant at least twice, rendering him unconscious.
The appellant raised self-defence at trial, arguing that the Crown could not negative that he was acting in defence of his partner when he struck the complainant. The jury rejected that defence and returned a verdict of guilty.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on self-defence, specifically by:
- Using an opening sentence that potentially reversed the onus of proof onto the accused
- Providing examples of disproportionate responses that may have led the jury to apply an objective unreasonableness test rather than the correct test under R v Zecevic
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Bell J (Sully J and Dunford J agreeing) finding that the trial judge's directions, read as a whole, constituted an accurate and complete statement of the law on self-defence.
The appellant's counsel conceded that the substantive directions given in response to a jury question were, apart from one opening sentence, an unexceptional and correct statement of the applicable law. Bell J accepted that the opening sentence in isolation was capable of criticism but concluded that, when the entire direction was read together, there was no real risk that the jury was left with the impression that the onus lay on the accused.
On the proportionality examples, Bell J rejected the submission that the trial judge's parting reminder of those examples effectively undercut otherwise accurate directions. The examples were given in the context of a direction that disproportionate force was a circumstance relevant to whether the Crown had negatived the accused's belief or the reasonableness of that belief, not a standalone test for defeating self-defence. There was no realistic risk that the jury understood the examples as directing them to convict on the basis of objective unreasonableness alone.
The single ground of appeal was not made out.
Orders Made
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a jury direction on self-defence must be assessed as a whole, not by isolating individual sentences that may be capable of criticism when read alone.
- A trial judge's use of illustrative examples of disproportionate force does not constitute a misdirection where those examples are embedded within a direction that correctly identifies proportionality as only one circumstance relevant to the Crown's burden, rather than a determinative test.
- Under the test in R v Zecevic (1987) 162 CLR 645, the Crown must negative either that the accused believed it was necessary to act as they did, or that the accused had reasonable grounds for that belief. Proportionality of response is relevant to those questions but does not alone determine them.
- No error was established merely because a direction could have been expressed more clearly, where the overall charge accurately conveyed the correct legal standard and the onus resting on the Crown.
- The Court applied the Crimes Amendment (Self-Defence) Act 2001 framework, with the analysis centred on whether the cumulative effect of the directions left the jury with an accurate understanding of the self-defence principles as they applied to the evidence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Amendment (Self-Defence) Act 2001 (NSW)
Cases
- R v Zecevic (1987) 162 CLR 645
- R v Dziduch (1990) 47 A Crim R 378
- R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294
- R v Lean (1993) 66 A Crim R 296