Hill v The Queen

Hill appealed against his conviction and sentence for seven counts of fraudulent misappropriation of money. The trial judge had allowed the Crown to amend certain counts in the indictment, which Hill argued prejudiced his defence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's decision to allow the amendment was correct and whether Hill was unfairly prejudiced by the amendment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the terms of the charges were sufficient to disclose an offence under the law, whether a "Murray" direction was necessary, and whether the trial judge erred in not giving a tendency evidence direction. Hill also claimed that the summing-up by the trial judge contained errors, and that the verdicts on certain counts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Finally, Hill argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the delay between the offences and the trial as a mitigating factor.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in allowing the amendment to the indictment, and that Hill was not unfairly prejudiced by the amendment. The court held that the terms of the charges were sufficient to disclose an offence under the law and that a "Murray" direction was not necessary. The court also found that there was no error in the trial judge's failure to give a tendency evidence direction. Regarding the summing-up, the court found that Hill's trial counsel had not sought any further direction at the time of the trial, and thus the appeal on this point was not valid under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules. The court held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the counts in question were established. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge had taken the delay into account, and that Hill had not discharged the onus of establishing the specific asserted effects of delay.

The court dismissed Hill's appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the delay between the offences and the trial. The court held that there was no basis upon which to assert that the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to the delay. The appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence, and to refuse leave to appeal against sentence.