Hanna v The Queen - [2009] NSWCCA 195

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Hanna v R [2009] NSWCCA 195

HEARING DATE(S): 8 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Kirby J at 53; Johnson J at 54

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - dishonestly damage property by means of fire - circumstantial Crown case - whether jury verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence - appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Burrell v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 65
Dodds v R (2009) NSWCCA 78
The Queen v Hillier [2007] 228 CLR 618

PARTIES: Louis Hanna (Appellant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/15936

COUNSEL: T A Game SC (Appellant)
N Noman (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0737

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hock DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 May 2008

2007/15936

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
KIRBY J
JOHNSON J
WEDNESDAY 5 AUGUST 2009

HANNA, Louis v R

Judgment

: The appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of one count of dishonestly damaging property by means of a fire contrary to s 197(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The indictment read as follows:

“On 12 September 2006 at Croydon Park in the State of New South Wales did dishonestly damage by means of fire premises at 12 Rawson Street, Croydon Park with a view to making a gain by making a claim against his insurance policy with AAMI insurance for the premises for Louis Hanna.”

2 The appellant was sentenced to periodic detention for 2 years 8 months with a balance of term of 2 years.

3 An appeal is brought against the conviction only. Although the appellant originally filed seven grounds of appeal, all but ground 7 were abandoned. Ground 7 alleges that the verdict cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

The Crown case

4 The appellant lived with his wife at the premises at 12 Rawson Street, Croydon Park. The premises were damaged by fire which occurred at about 1 pm on 12 September 2006. The Crown case against the appellant was entirely circumstantial.

5 The forensic evidence indicated that the fire had been deliberately lit. Accelerant was found in 3 separate locations. There was no evidence that the premises had been forcibly entered. There was an unlocked window at the front of the house. A person entering through that window would have had to fortuitously come upon it. They would have been visible from the street. The forensic evidence indicated that the fires were lit commencing at the front of the house, so that the offender must have exited through the rear door.

6 The fire was first reported by a neighbour Ms Winter-Myers who gave evidence that she had observed smoke coming from the house but delayed for 15-20 minutes eating her lunch before ringing triple O. The triple O…

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 Hanna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hanna v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 195
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 195
Decision Date: 5 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hanna v The Queen involves an appeal against conviction for the offence of damaging property by fire with intent to defraud or to commit an indictable offence. The respondent, the Queen, successfully prosecuted the appellant for setting fire to a house with the intent to cause damage and defraud an insurer. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant challenged the jury's verdict, asserting that it was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence presented. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the nature of the Crown's case, which relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. It considered whether the jury's verdict was so unreasonable that it could not be supported by the evidence. The court found that the evidence, including expert testimony and the appellant's conduct, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion. The court concluded that the jury had properly assessed the evidence and reached a verdict that was reasonable and supported by the material before them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's conviction for the crime of damaging property by fire with intent to defraud.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principles of criminal law, particularly the standard of proof required for a conviction. The court emphasised that the jury is best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence. In this case, the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was deemed adequate to support the jury's decision. The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the jury's verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence.

Orders