R v Anderson - [2014] QCA 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anderson [2014] QCA 134

PARTIES:

R
v
ANDERSON, Tony Kristen John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 302 of 2013
SC No 646 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2.Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle at a marked police car that was in pursuit – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – where the appellant was found not guilty of, inter alia, one count of attempted murder – whether a verdict of guilty on malicious act with intent is inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty of attempted murder

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of, inter alia, one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – whether the jury could be satisfied the appellant’s actions were willed – whether the verdict of guilty for a malicious act with intent was unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of 10 years imprisonment – where the appellant was declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted of attempted murder in 2001 and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted for robbery with actual violence whilst armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was sentenced to…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2014] QCA 134
Case: [2014] QCA 134
Decision Date: 6 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Anderson, was convicted of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and one count of malicious act with intent. The case was heard in the appellate court of Australia. The appeal was brought on three grounds: the inconsistency of the verdicts, the unreasonability of the verdict in light of the evidence, and the excessiveness of the sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the verdict of guilty on the charge of malicious act with intent was inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty on the charge of attempted murder. The court also had to decide whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant’s actions were willed and if the verdict of guilty for malicious act with intent was safe and satisfactory. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the judge acted on the wrong principle in sentencing.

The court held that there was no inconsistency in the verdicts, as the jury could have reasonably found that the appellant did not intend to kill. The court found that the verdict of guilty for malicious act with intent was reasonable in light of the evidence, as the jury could have concluded that the appellant’s actions were willed. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s personal circumstances and the nature of the offences. The court found that the judge did not act on the wrong principle in sentencing and therefore the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2.Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Anderson [2014] QCA 134
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Tony Kristen John (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 302 of 2013 SC No 646 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.The appeal against conviction be dismissed. 2.Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle at a marked police car that was in pursuit – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – where the appellant was found not guilty of, inter alia, one count of attempted murder – whether a verdict of guilty on malicious act with intent is inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty of attempted murder CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of, inter alia, one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – whether the jury could be satisfied the appellant’s actions were willed – whether the verdict of guilty for a malicious act with intent was unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of 10 years imprisonment – where the appellant was declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted of attempted murder in 2001 and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted for robbery with actual violence whilst armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was sentenced to…