SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Conway [2005] QCA 194
PARTIES:
R
v
CONWAY, Samuel Joseph
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 121 of 2005
DC No 4 of 2005DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
10 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
24 May 2005
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Atkinson and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
3. Appeal allowed
4. Order that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment be suspended after the applicant has served three months imprisonment with an operational period of 12 monthsCATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTEFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant convicted after trial of assaulting a police officer in execution of duty – police officer attended appellant's home – arrested appellant – gave appellant a chance to collect a shirt and shoes from inside house – followed appellant up steps and onto verandah – appellant's sister objected to police officer's entry through front door – appellant emerged from house and assaulted police officer on verandah – trial judge rejected appellant's no case submission and did not direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict – whether open to jury to find the police officer was acting in execution of his duty at the time of the assault
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – appellant given identifying particulars notice – failed to comply within seven days – arrested by police officer without warrant under s 198(1)(a) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) for offence of contravening a requirement or direction given by a police officer – trial judge directed jury the Crown case was that police officer's arrest was lawful to prevent continuation or repetition of offence – whether offence complete after the passing of seven days a question of fact for the jury – whether any error in direction of trial judge
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – whether trial judge sufficiently identified issues in the case for the jury – whether trial judge outlined the main arguments of defence counsel to the jury
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – whether in review of the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt…
Continue reading R v Conway
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Conway [2005] QCA 194
- Case
- [2005] QCA 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal examined the specific legal issues regarding the trial judge's direction to the jury and the presentation of the defence case. The appellant argued that the jury should have been directed to find that the police officer was not acting in the execution of his duty when the assault occurred, and that the jury should have been told the offence was complete after seven days, leaving no lawful basis for the arrest. The Court found that the trial judge adequately addressed the issues and that there was no misdirection or non-direction that would warrant a new trial. The jury was properly instructed on the legal standards, and the evidence supported their conclusion. The Court also noted that the appellant had not called any evidence or witnesses, and thus the jury's decision was based on the evidence presented by the Crown.
In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no substantial misdirection by the trial judge. The jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, and the legal instructions were appropriate. The Court granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The sentence was varied to suspend the imprisonment after the appellant had served three months, with an operational period of 12 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
3. Appeal allowed
4. Order that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment be suspended after the applicant has served three months imprisonment with an operational period of 12 months
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.