Craig Hanlon v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 81

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0041

CRAIG HANLON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TATE AND KYROU JJA AND BEALE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 March 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 81
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 1970 (Judge Hogan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – One charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of common law assault – Conviction following trial by jury – Total effective sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of two years – Whether judge erred in direction to the jury about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – Whether jury verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Dookheea v The Queen [2016] VSCA 67, R v Dookheea (2017) 347 ALR 529, Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28, discussed – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Dann QC with Mr H Venice	Ms M Walker, Criminal Law Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr B Kissane QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TATE JA:

Introduction

The applicant, Craig Hanlon, was tried by jury in the County Court of Victoria between 10 and 21 October 2016 on an indictment containing 10 charges.

On 21 October 2016, Hanlon was found not guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 on the indictment. He was found guilty by a jury of one charge of aggravated burglary (charge 6) and one charge of common law assault (charge 9).

Hanlon was sentenced on 13 December 2016 as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum penalty Sentence Cumulation

6 Aggravated burglary 25 years’ imprisonment 3 years’ imprisonment Base

9 Common law assault 5 years’ imprisonment 12 months’ imprisonment 6 months

Total effective sentence 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period 2 years

Pre-sentence detention 166 days

Hanlon now applies for leave to appeal his convictions on charges 6 and 9.

Complainant’s evidence of circumstances of offending

The charges on the indictment related to offending that was alleged to have occurred during the course of two incidents. Charges 1–5 related to an incident on 17 January 2015 (‘the first incident’). Charges 6–10 related to an incident on 29 January 2015 (‘the second incident’).

The complainant is Hanlon’s former wife. She alleged that on the day of the first incident the applicant arrived at her unit in Reservoir, dragged her into the garage and attacked her with a spanner. He was found not guilty of all charges related to the first incident.

The second incident involved Hanlon forcing entry into the complainant’s unit at approximately 12:30 pm, after arriving at other times over the days before, and demanding entry. The complainant’s evidence was that Hanlon arrived at her door, very angry, and was yelling ‘Open the fucking door, I'm gunna get in, when I get in I'm gunna bash the fuck out of you.’ This occurred over several minutes. It went quiet. She thought…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Craig Hanlon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Craig Hanlon v The Queen [2018] VSCA 81
Case: [2018] VSCA 81
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Hanlon appealed against his conviction and sentence following his trial by jury in the County Court of Victoria. Hanlon was found guilty of one count of aggravated burglary and one count of common law assault. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts, and the trial judge sentenced Hanlon to a total effective sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The appeal raised two primary issues: first, whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury regarding the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt', and second, whether the jury's verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was based on the contention that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the concept of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' were inadequate and misleading. The Court of Appeal examined the relevant authorities, including Dookhea v The Queen, R v Dookhea, and Green v The Queen, to assess whether the trial judge's directions were deficient. The Court held that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and did not err in law. The Court also considered whether the jury's verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, applying the principles established in Dookhea and Green. After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's directions, the Court concluded that the jury's verdicts were safe and satisfactory. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders