University Law Case Study: R vs. Smith [2003] QCA 76

The case study analyzes R vs. Smith [2003] QCA 76, focusing on the appeal against a conviction for assault causing bodily harm. The legal issue revolves around the admissibility of evidence and whether the verdict was unreasonable. The appellant contended that the evidence was not properly handled as per the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The court considered the circumstantial evidence, the relevancy of the indictment, and the compliance with the Act. The court found the evidence admissible and the trials were heard together. The court confirmed the sentence imposed on the appellants and dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The analysis includes legal material facts, arguments, reasoning, and the final decision.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
R vs. SMITH
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

2CASE STUDY
R vs. SMITH [2003] QCA 76; 138 A Crim R 172
LEGAL ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether the appeal against the appeal and sentencing is accepted
by the Court on the ground of unreasonable or insupportable verdict.
The issue in the case is whether the evidence complied with the provisions of the Police
Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).
LEGAL MATERIAL FACTS:
the appellant was held guilty in a jury trial for assault causing bodily harm. He
immediately attacked one of the complainants in the courtroom and assaulted him. The
courtroom incident led to him pleading guilty of common assault by ex officio indictment. His
sentence was decided and he served imprisonment. He appeals against the convictions based on
jury verdicts.
Law:
Section 597 (1) of the Criminal Code states that if a person is accused of two criminal
liabilities, the trial could be held jointly if such accusation is of the similar nature.
Division 5 Part 3 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, section 246 deals
with the provision that the part shall be applicable when a person is accompanied by the police
officer for the purpose of being interrogated within the police custody as a suspect about his or
her being a part of the commission of an indictable offence. However, this part shall not be

3CASE STUDY
applicable if the police is exercising the power to detain a person and power to require the person
to answer questions or give information.
Section 263 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities act 2000 (Qld) applies to the power
of the police to question a person but also confers the responsibility on the police to consider the
relevancy of the person to the question asked and the crime investigated or committed. The
provision also lays down that the question and the answers, or the entire process of interrogation
while in the police custody to be recorded, preferably in an electronic form to ensure its viability.
The language of questioning should be in English irrespective of the presence of an interpreter.
After the completion of the process of questioning, the entire questions and answers to be read
loudly to the person in English or the language used by the person along with a copy of such
questioning to be submitted to the person. The person should be given enough and fair
opportunity to read and point attention to the errors that may have been present in the copy.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND ARGUMENTATION:
The appellants had contended that the evidence voir dire was not handed over to the
Court whereas Kitching’s statement was handed over to the court. They contended that they had
a small scuffle over the girl but such scuffle cannot be contended as an assault. The appellant
contends that this was not a confession to the crime and thus, was irrelevant as an evidence.
However, the relevancy of the person to the indictive offence still lies the issue with the court.
The appellants further contended that the question was an error in evidence because it was not as
per the provisions of Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). According to him, the
statement of questions and answers was not provided to the appellant electronically or in writing
even after the passing of six months since the questionnaire.

4CASE STUDY
The respondent has contended that the conviction must be affirmed and upheld by the
court on the grounds of substantial miscarriage of justice not being done1. In the given scenario,
it can be analyzed that the evidence was based on the circumstantial evidence and hence it was
finely balanced by identifying the evidences in the circumstantial events of the happening. The
respondents have put forth that the jury was reasonable and has put forward the conviction
inevitably on the basis of such circumstantial evidence2 which lays the foundation of the
conviction of the appellant.
REASON FOR DECISION:
The court found that the statement was admissible and would be identified a san evidence
on the grounds of its circumstantial validity and hence, the appellant was found to be violently
behaving with the girl. Further, the court found that the person who assaulted the c omplainant in
the court room was the same person who had assaulted him resulting in the cause of action.
Thus, the evidence based on the description was admissible and relevant on both the counts.
The trials have been heard together on the ground of the relevancy of the indictment.
Refusal of the order to trial the cases separately did not result in any miscarriage of justice and as
a result of which the outcome stands as no ground for appeal.
CONCLUSION:
It can be concluded that the sentence imposed on the appellants were confirmed.
It can be concluded that the appeal against the conviction was allowed and subsequently
dismissed.
1 Section 668E (iA), Criminal Code
2 Festa vs. The Queen (2001) 76 ALRJ 291.

5CASE STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Case law:
Festa vs. The Queen (2001) 76 ALRJ 291.
Legislation:
Section 668E (iA), Criminal Code
Criminal Code
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).