Accused attempted murderer Daniel John Shields has been granted a retrial by court of appeal

A Central Queensland man found guilty by a jury in November 2020 of attempted murder after allegedly attacking his lover’s former partner with a machete has been granted a new trial by the court of appeal. Find out what it means here.

A Central Queensland man found guilty by a jury in November 2020 of the attempted murder of his lover’s former partner after she confessed to cheating with her ex has been granted a new trial by the court of appeal.

In a decision published on April 12, 2022, the court of appeal granted Daniel John Shields a retrial after appealing his conviction on three grounds – all based on misdirections by the learned trial judge, Justice Graeme Crow, in the course of the summing up of the case for the jury.

Daniel John Shields has been accused of attempted murder of Raymond Jarvis.

Mr Shields had been in a relationship with Allison Whyte, who had an on-again, off-again relationship with Raymond Jarvis – the man who Mr Shields was accused of attempting to murder during a violent altercation at Mr Jarvis’ Gracemere residence on February 6, 2019.

Mr Shields was accused of using a machete to wound Mr Jarvis under his right armpit, along with hitting Mr Jarvis’ head when he came up from behind him.

During the trial, the jury heard there had been many encounters between Mr Shields and Mr Jarvis, including one where Mr Shields allegedly wielded an axe at Mr Jarvis.

On the day of the altercation, Ms Whyte told Mr Shields she had cheated on him by having sex with Mr Jarvis.

Shields attended Mr Jarvis’ residence that afternoon, allegedly knocking wheelie bins over, creating a noise and alerting Mr Jarvis and neighbours to his presence.

Alleged attempted murder victim Raymond Jarvis leaving the Rockhampton courthouse.

Mr Jarvis told the court during the trial he heard a commotion outside, which sounded like bins being thrown and someone yelling, so he went to check it out.

He said when he saw it was Mr Shields, he understood him to be yelling that he (Mr Jarvis) had ruined Shields’ life.

The pair was involved in a violent altercation where Mr Jarvis was stabbed in the chest.

Mr Shields had pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, and not guilty of an alternative charge of malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with the jury delivering a guilty verdict for attempted murder on November 27, 2020.

In the court of appeal decision, it stated Mr Shields appealed the conviction, claiming Justice Crow misdirected the jury “that the defence of self-defence need only be considered if they accepted the evidence of the appellant as truthful and reliable”; that he failed to adequately direct the jury in relation to the defence of self defence and failed to adequately direct the jury about how to view the prior acts of discreditable conduct by Mr Shields and the need to avoid propensity reasoning (concluding that his past behaviour meant he was capable of the alleged crime before the jury).

The Court of Appeal’s Justice Philip Morrison, agreed with by Justice Hugh Fraser, wrote the first ground of appeal – Justice Crow’s misdirection to the jury about the defence of self-defence, “effectively reversed the onus of proof and created a circumstance where the jury’s acceptance of the appellant’s evidence as truthful and reliable was a condition precedent to their consideration of self-defence”.

It was that ground that warranted the appeal be allowed and a retrial ordered, however, Justice Morrison did still address the two other grounds.

There were three elements to the second ground – Justice Crow did not direct the jury about the meaning of ‘assault’ and he did not direct the jury about provocation, but Justice Morrison rejected this ground, stating Justice Crow made it plain what the provocation relied on.

The third element – the claim Justice Crow did not adequately instruct the jury about the definition of “grievous bodily harm” in the context of the issues to be determined in this case – was accepted.

Justice Morrison wrote: “In my view, the directions failed to appropriately direct the jury as to what could constitute serious disfigurement or loss of all or part of a distinct organ of the body. Thus the directions gave rise to a possibility that the jury may have misinterpreted the defences available to (Mr Shields).”

Justice Philip McMurdo, the third member of the court of appeal for this case, agreed mostly with Justice Morrison’s reasons, but disagreed about the self-defence ground.

He wrote: “The evidence did not raise the possibility that the appellant acted in defence against an attack by the complainant which the appellant had provoked.”

“If the jury rejected the appellant’s evidence, and also accepted the complainant’s evidence, no question of self-defence arose,” Justice McMurdo wrote.

“The background of acrimony between the two men did not, in my view, make a difference.”

A retrial date has yet to be set.