R v Arnold; ex parte - [2002] QCA 357

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Arnold; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 357

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
ARNOLD, David Lyall
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)

THE QUEEN
v
ARNOLD, David Lyall
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 287 of 2001
CA No 293 of 2001
DC No 193 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld)
Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Atkinson JJ

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. The Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence be allowed. The sentences imposed below in respect of counts 2, 13 and 15 be set aside and in lieu thereof sentences of 13 years imprisonment be imposed, to be served concurrently. A declaration that the offence is a serious violent offence should be made. Otherwise the sentences below are confirmed.
3. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT TAKEN AT TRIAL – where at appeal request by appellant’s counsel to adjourn hearing refused – where appellant raised additional matters to those argued by his counsel after the appeal was heard – where appellant argued that his legal representation had been inadequate at trial – s 23 Criminal Code – consideration of test in R v Paddon

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether trial judge failed to direct that each count be considered separately – where jury asked for clarification of the incidents to which particular counts relates – whether this suggests that the jury was aware that each count required separate consideration

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICITON – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION –– IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - whether trial judge failed to direct that the circumstances involving each complaint were to be considered separately and as to admissibility of evidence concerning one complainant in respect of the other where appellant had confessed in a detailed way to the offences against both complainants – where appellant questioned the reliability of the confession of the youngest victim – where youngest complainant too young to give evidence – whether absence of supporting evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICITON – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether no case to answer on counts relating to administration of a “stupefying drug” – whether evidence established that prior to the committing of the offences the appellant blew cannabis smoke into 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 R v Arnold; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Arnold; ex parte [2002] QCA 357
Case: [2002] QCA 357
Decision Date: 17 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Arnold; ex parte, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence, while the Attorney-General appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal and new trial application arose from the appellant's conviction for various offences, including administering a stupefying drug and sexual offences against multiple complainants. The appellant raised new issues at the appeal stage, including claims of inadequate legal representation and alleged misdirections by the trial judge.

The court had to determine whether the appellant's new points of appeal were admissible, given that they were not raised at trial or during the initial appeal. The court also needed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and whether the jury's verdict was safe and satisfactory. Further, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the serious nature of the offences.

The court found that the appeal against conviction was not well-founded, and thus the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and there were no misdirections by the trial judge that would warrant a new trial. The jury's verdict was deemed safe and satisfactory. However, the court accepted the Attorney-General's appeal against the sentence, finding it to be manifestly inadequate given the serious nature of the offences. The sentences imposed for certain counts were set aside and replaced with more severe sentences, with a declaration that the offence is a serious violent offence.

The court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence, confirming the rest of the sentences as imposed by the lower court. The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, the Attorney-General's appeal against sentence be allowed with the specified changes to the sentences, and the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. The Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence be allowed. The sentences imposed below in respect of counts 2, 13 and 15 be set aside and in lieu thereof sentences of 13 years imprisonment be imposed, to be served concurrently. A declaration that the offence is a serious violent offence should be made. Otherwise the sentences below are confirmed.

3. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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.

CITATION:	R v Arnold; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 357
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v ARNOLD, David Lyall (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) THE QUEEN v ARNOLD, David Lyall (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 287 of 2001 CA No 293 of 2001 DC No 193 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld) Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Atkinson JJ 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. The Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence be allowed. The sentences imposed below in respect of counts 2, 13 and 15 be set aside and in lieu thereof sentences of 13 years imprisonment be imposed, to be served concurrently. A declaration that the offence is a serious violent offence should be made. Otherwise the sentences below are confirmed. 3. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT TAKEN AT TRIAL – where at appeal request by appellant’s counsel to adjourn hearing refused – where appellant raised additional matters to those argued by his counsel after the appeal was heard – where appellant argued that his legal representation had been inadequate at trial – s 23 Criminal Code – consideration of test in R v Paddon CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether trial judge failed to direct that each count be considered separately – where jury asked for clarification of the incidents to which particular counts relates – whether this suggests that the jury was aware that each count required separate consideration CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICITON – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION –– IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - whether trial judge failed to direct that the circumstances involving each complaint were to be considered separately and as to admissibility of evidence concerning one complainant in respect of the other where appellant had confessed in a detailed way to the offences against both complainants – where appellant questioned the reliability of the confession of the youngest victim – where youngest complainant too young to give evidence – whether absence of supporting evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICITON – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – whether no case to answer on counts relating to administration of a “stupefying drug” – whether evidence established that prior to the committing of the offences the appellant blew cannabis smoke into the…