Hinton v The Queen

Case [2000] FCA 1019

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hinton v The Queen [2000] FCA 1019

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – competency of notice of appeal – appeal from Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory – whether verdict of jury constitutes “judgment” – whether conviction not yet recorded constitutes “judgment” – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 4 and 24(1)(b).

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 4, 24(1)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 567
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 668D
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 352
The Criminal Code (WA) s 688
The Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) s 410.

Duff v R (1979) 39 FLR 317 at 324 (28 ALR 663 at 670)
Musgrove v McDonald (1906) 3 CLR 132
R v Snow (1915) 20 CLR 315 at 324
Menges v R (1919) 26 CLR 369 at 373
Jenyns v Public Curator (Kew) (1953) 90 CLR 113 at 119
Australian Iron and Steel Ltd v Greenwood (1962) 107 CLR 308 at 318
Riley v Nelson (1965) 119 CLR 131 at 149
Ah Toy v Registrar of Companies (1985) 10 FCR 280 at 285
Re Stubbs (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 329 at 339
S (an infant) v Manchester City Recorder [1969] 3 All ER 1230 at 1246
Attorney-General (NSW) v Dawes [1976] 1 NSWLR 242 at 245
R v Hannan; Ex parte Abbott (1986) 41 NTR 37 at 40-41
Kopuz v District Court of New South Wales (1992) 28 NSWLR 232
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 273
R v Tonks & Goss [1963] VR 121
R v Jerome & McMahon [1964] Qd R 595
Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 301
R v Celep [1998] 4 VR 811 at 813
R v De Marchi [1983] 1 VR 619
Byrnes v R (1999) 164 ALR 520 at 543

GREGORY MARTIN HINTON v THE QUEEN
A 27 of 2000

MILES, MADGWICK & WEINBERG JJ
1 AUGUST 2000
CANBERRA


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A 27 OF 2000

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

GREGORY MARTIN HINTON
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MILES, MADGWICK and WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The notice of appeal filed on 13 April 2000 be dismissed as incompetent.

2.The notice of motion dated 1 May 2000 be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 27 OF 2000

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

GREGORY MARTIN HINTON
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MILES, MADGWICK and WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

1 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. On 31 March 2000 a jury found the appellant, Gregory Martin Hinton, guilty on eight counts of possession and supply…

Continue reading Hinton v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hinton v The Queen [2000] FCA 1019
Case
[2000] FCA 1019
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hinton v The Queen involved a dispute concerning the scope of the Federal Court's appellate jurisdiction over criminal matters. The appellant sought to appeal against a verdict of a jury, which he argued was incorrect. The central legal issue was whether the court had the authority to hear an appeal against a jury's verdict directly, or if the appeal could only be brought against the judgment entered on that verdict. The court had to determine whether a jury's verdict itself constituted a "judgment" within the meaning of section 4 of the Federal Court Act.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Act and the Constitution, as well as previous case law on the matter. It noted that section 4 of the Federal Court Act defines "judgment" as including a judgment, decree, or order, but does not explicitly include a jury's verdict. The court relied on the Full Court's decision in Duff v R, which held that an appeal lies from the judgment entered upon a verdict in a criminal trial, but not from the verdict itself. The court also referred to the High Court's decision in Musgrove v McDonald, which supported the view that an appeal does not lie from a jury's verdict. These authorities were considered to be relevant to the interpretation of section 4 of the Federal Court Act.

Based on the analysis of the relevant legislation and case law, the court concluded that the appeal was incompetent because it was brought against the jury's verdict, rather than the judgment entered on that verdict. The court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision in Duff v R, and that the appeal was therefore dismissed as incompetent. Additionally, the notice of motion was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the court made two orders. Firstly, the notice of appeal filed on 13 April 2000 was dismissed as incompetent. Secondly, the notice of motion dated 1 May 2000 was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of appeal filed on 13 April 2000 be dismissed as incompetent.

2. The notice of motion dated 1 May 2000 be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

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

In s 4 of the Federal Court Act, judgment is defined as follows:“4. judgment means a judgment, decree or order, whether final or interlocutory, or a sentence.” The most extensive consideration of the role of this Court in hearing and determining criminal appeals is found in Duff v R (1979) 39 FLR 317 where at 324 (28 ALR 663 at 670) a Full Court said:“A judgment is defined by s 4 to mean “a judgment, decree or order, whether final or interlocutory, or a sentence” but the definition does not include the verdict of a jury. Although a verdict is not itself a “judgment” from which an appeal may be brought an appeal lies from the judgment which is entered upon a verdict in a criminal trial unless it be a judgment of acquittal. The definition of the jurisdiction conferred by s 24(1)(b) is expanded by ss 27, 28 and 30. Section 28(1) specifies orders which the court might make “in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction”, and it confers upon the court power, inter alia, to:“(e)set aside the verdict and judgment in a trial on indictment and order a verdict of not guilty or other appropriate verdict to be entered;(f)grant a new trial in any case in which there has been a trial, either with or without a jury, on any ground upon which it is appropriate to grant a new trial …”Before a new trial is ordered, the jury’s verdict must, or course, be set aside for: “If the verdict stands, no other judgment can be given, and, therefore, the judgment which is given by the Judge appears to be the only act of the Court, and it is only against an act of the Court that an appeal lies. There is no other act of the Court; the verdict is not the act of the Court; the verdict is the act of the jury.” (Footnotes omitted) The reasoning of the Full Court in Duff is supported by the decision of the High Court in Musgrove v McDonald (1906) 3 CLR 132 where it was held that an appeal did not lie to the High Court from a verdict of a jury. Such a verdict was not, relevantly, a judgment, decree, or order within the meaning of those expressions in s 73 of the Constitution. Musgrove v McDonald has been followed on many occasions - R v Snow (1915) 20 CLR 315 at 324 per Griffith CJ; Menges v R (1919) 26 CLR 369 at 373 per Barton J; Jenyns v Public Curator (Kew) (1953) 90 CLR 113 at 119 per Dixon CJ and McTiernan and Kitto JJ; Australian Iron and Steel Ltd v Greenwood (1962) 107 CLR 308 at 318 per Windeyer J; and Riley v Nelson (1965) 119 CLR 131 at 149 per Barwick CJ. These authorities, all of which deal with the interpretation of s 73 of the Constitution, have been held to be relevant to the interpretation of s 4 of the Federal Court Act. In Ah Toy v Registrar of Companies (1985) 10 FCR 280 a Full Court said at 285:“It is accepted that the expression “judgment, decree or order” bears the meaning which the words “all judgments, decrees, orders …” have in s 73 of the Constitution: Moller v Roy (1975) 132 CLR 622 per Barwick CJ at 625.” We consider that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court in Duff. The definition of a judgment in s 4 of the Federal Court Act does not include the verdict of a jury. An appeal to this Court lies from the judgment which is entered upon a verdict in a criminal trial, and not the verdict itself.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.