Hall v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 20

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 20
Hearing dates: 30 October 2020
Date of orders: 03 March 2021
Decision date: 03 March 2021
Before: Harrison J at [1]
R A Hulme J at [58]
Ierace J at [61]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against conviction but dismiss the appeal.
(2) Grant leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – historical child sexual offences – trial by judge alone – where applicant a teacher in school attended by complainants – position of trust – unrepresented applicant – where applicant convicted on a majority of counts on the indictment – whether verdicts unreasonable – whether evidence unfairly admitted – whether applicant incompetently represented by counsel at trial – where applicant’s principal contention was that trial judge failed to conclude that complainants had motive to lie
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence – where applicant raises manifest excess as a ground without identifying legal error – where applicant’s principal argument asserting manifest excess was that he was wrongly convicted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
McPhillamy v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 1045; [2018] HCA 52
The Queen v Dennis Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46
WG v R; KR v R [2020] NSWCCA 155

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Edward Anthony Hall (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/225172
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

05 October 2018

Before:

Gartelmann SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/225172

Judgment

HARRISON J: Edward Hall appeals against his convictions and sentence following a trial before his Honour Gartelmann SC DCJ sitting in Newcastle without a jury. Mr Hall was found guilty on 5 October 2018 of 21 child sex offences that had been committed between 1973 and 1986 when he was a lay teacher at St Pius X secondary school at Adamstown. All of the complainants were students at the school when the offences were committed.
Mr Hall appeared in this Court without legal representation or assistance. He has filed and relies upon several documents in handwriting that do not specifically describe his grounds of appeal. However, senior counsel for the Crown has identified what appear to be the several bases upon which Mr Hall wishes to challenge his convictions and his sentence. Mr Hall accepted the Crown’s characterisation of these grounds as the following:

Ground 1: The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.

Ground 2: Mr Hall was unable to receive a fair trial.

Ground 3: Tendency evidence was unfairly admitted in the trial.

Ground 4: Mr Hall’s trial was incompetently conducted by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hall v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWCCA 20
Decision Date: 05 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hall v The Queen was against a conviction and sentence for historical child sexual offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant was a former teacher at the school attended by the complainants, and the issue was whether the trial judge erred in various ways that led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

The legal issues included whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and in failing to conclude that the complainants had a motive to lie. The applicant also contended that he was incompetently represented by counsel at trial. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any error by the trial judge in admitting evidence or in concluding that the complainants had no motive to lie. The court held that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory. The court also found that the applicant had not been incompetently represented by counsel. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the applicant had not identified any legal error and therefore the sentence could not be reviewed on the ground of manifest excess. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Orders