R v Dell - [2016] QCA 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dell [2016] QCA 257

PARTIES:

R
v
DELL, Glenn Charles
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 266 of 2015
CA No 306 of 2015
DC No 120 of 2015
DC No 411 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 16 October 2015; Date of Sentence: 9 December 2015

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 June 2016

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Philippides JA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the Crown case on the grievous bodily harm count was that the appellant was criminally responsible under s 289 of the Criminal Code, having left in a public place a golf ball filled with explosives, which caused serious injury to a teenager in whose hands it exploded – where the appellant appeals against the grievous bodily harm conviction on the ground that is unreasonable – where the appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was responsible for the production or deposit of the golf ball – where the appellant contends that there existed reasonable possibilities that the device was made by a witness or by his co-accused, without his involvement – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the appellant pleaded guilty to two further counts of carrying dangerous goods and one count of unlawful deposition of explosives – where the appellant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years in respect of the grievous bodily harm count – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 289

R v Betts[2011] QCA 244, cited
R v Clark (2007) 171 A Crim R 532; [2007] QCA 168, cited
R v Wing[2007] QCA 138, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: The appellant went to trial on three counts of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm. (He had pleaded guilty 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 Dell

Details

AGLC: R v Dell [2016] QCA 257
Case: [2016] QCA 257
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in the matter of R v Dell was convicted by a jury of one count of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm. The Crown's case on the grievous bodily harm count was that the appellant was criminally responsible under section 289 of the Criminal Code, having left in a public place a golf ball filled with explosives, which caused serious injury to a teenager in whose hands it exploded. The appellant appealed against the grievous bodily harm conviction on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. The central legal issues were whether the verdict was unreasonable and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury that the appellant was responsible for the production or deposit of the golf ball. The court held that the appellant's argument that there existed reasonable possibilities that the device was made by a witness or by his co-accused, without his involvement, did not undermine the verdict. The court found that the verdict was not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence. The court also found that the sentence of four and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years was not manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application to appeal against sentence is 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 Dell [2016] QCA 257
PARTIES:	R v DELL, Glenn Charles (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 266 of 2015 CA No 306 of 2015 DC No 120 of 2015 DC No 411 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 16 October 2015; Date of Sentence: 9 December 2015
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 June 2016
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Philippides JA and Peter Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the Crown case on the grievous bodily harm count was that the appellant was criminally responsible under s 289 of the Criminal Code, having left in a public place a golf ball filled with explosives, which caused serious injury to a teenager in whose hands it exploded – where the appellant appeals against the grievous bodily harm conviction on the ground that is unreasonable – where the appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was responsible for the production or deposit of the golf ball – where the appellant contends that there existed reasonable possibilities that the device was made by a witness or by his co-accused, without his involvement – whether the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of carrying dangerous goods in a vehicle and one count of grievous bodily harm – where the appellant pleaded guilty to two further counts of carrying dangerous goods and one count of unlawful deposition of explosives – where the appellant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years in respect of the grievous bodily harm count – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 289 R v Betts[2011] QCA 244, cited R v Clark (2007) 171 A Crim R 532; [2007] QCA 168, cited R v Wing[2007] QCA 138, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent