HANNEYBEL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 54

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 54
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:158/2003	Heard:	23 MARCH 2004
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	31/03/04
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WARREN DAVID HANNEYBEL THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Stealing as employee Defence applications to adjourn trial refused Whether accused had full opportunity to present defence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 R v Jones [1971] VR 72 R v McGill [1967] VR 683 Leary and Compt v R [1975] WAR 133 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 R v Cox [1960] VR 665 Webb v Johnston (1986) 3 MVR 191

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HANNEYBEL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 54 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

EM HEENAN J

HEARD : 23 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 158 of 2003 BETWEEN : WARREN DAVID HANNEYBEL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : H H JACKSON DCJ

File Number : IND 467 of 2001

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Stealing as employee - Defence applications to adjourn trial refused - Whether accused had full opportunity to present defence - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr G W Massey

Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant : Holborn Lenhoff Massey

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414
R v Jones [1971] VR 72
R v McGill [1967] VR 683

Case(s) also cited:

Leary and Compt v R [1975] WAR 133
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
R v Cox [1960] VR 665
Webb v Johnston (1986) 3 MVR 191

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: The appellant, Warren David Hanneybel, was convicted after trial in the District Court in September 2003 on 80 counts of stealing money as a servant, one count of stealing property as a servant and seven counts of making false entries in a record with intent to defraud. He was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment. A compensation order in an amount of $253,762.84 was made against the appellant in favour of his former employer, Uniflex (Australia) Pty Ltd ("Uniflex").

2 The appellant appealed against his convictions on the ground that the learned trial Judge erred in failing to grant him an adjournment of the trial, in the circumstances to which I shall refer in due course. The appellant appealed also against the compensation order, on the ground that if the appeal against conviction succeeded, there would be no basis for the…

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 Hanneybel v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hanneybel v The Queen [2004] WASCA 54
Case: [2004] WASCA 54
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hanneybel, was convicted of stealing as an employee and sought to appeal against this conviction. The primary issue for the court was whether the appellant had a full opportunity to present his defence. This issue arose from the refusal of two applications to adjourn the trial, which the appellant claimed would have allowed him more time to prepare his defence. The court was tasked with determining whether these applications, if granted, would have provided the appellant with a meaningful opportunity to present his defence. The court also had to consider whether the refusal of these applications was a breach of the appellant's right to a fair trial. The appellant argued that the refusal of the applications denied him the opportunity to present his defence effectively.

The court examined the specific circumstances of the case to determine whether the appellant had a full opportunity to present his defence. The court considered the nature and complexity of the evidence, the time available to the appellant to prepare his defence, and the reasons behind the refusal of the applications. The court found that the applications were not refused on the basis of the appellant's inability to present his defence, but rather due to logistical and administrative reasons. The court held that the appellant had ample opportunity to present his defence and that the refusal of the applications did not prejudice his ability to do so. The court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and that the appellant's right to a fair trial was not breached.

Based on the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the appellant had a full opportunity to present his defence and that the refusal of the applications to adjourn the trial did not prejudice this right. The court held that the trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that there was no error in the proceedings that would warrant an appeal. The appellant's conviction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.