R v Hainut Summary | CaseChat AU

[2001] QCA 210

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
HELMAN J
ATKINSON J

CA No 6 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JEAN BAPTISTE HAINAUT Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/05/2001

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JA: This is an appeal by an appellant against his conviction for possession of a drug in excess of the prescribed quantity. He defended himself at trial and he has prosecuted his appeal in person. A record has been prepared and supplied to the Court. However, he did not present any written outline of submissions and when his name was called today he has not appeared to further prosecute
the appeal.

I have studied the record and the grounds which are contained in his notice of appeal. I have also been assisted by the outline prepared by the respondent. In my view none of the grounds of appeal contains any matter of substance which could justify allowance of the appeal. I do not consider that any of the grounds are made out, and am accordingly prepared to dismiss it on the merits.

HELMAN J: I agree.

ATKINSON J: I agree.

THOMAS JA: The order is that the appeal is dismissed.

-----

The case of R v Hainaut involved an appeal by Jean Baptiste Hainaut against his conviction for possession of a drug in quantities exceeding the prescribed limit. The appellant represented himself in the trial and has chosen to prosecute the appeal personally, despite not providing a written outline of his submissions. On the day the appeal was to be heard, Hainaut did not appear, leading to the dismissal of his appeal on the grounds of lack of substance. The Queensland Court of Appeal, consisting of Thomas JA, Helman J, and Atkinson J, reviewed the record of the trial and the grounds of appeal outlined by Hainaut. Despite the absence of the appellant, the court proceeded to consider the appeal based on the available records and an outline prepared by the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether any of the grounds of appeal presented by Hainaut were sufficient to warrant reconsideration of his conviction. The appellant's grounds of appeal needed to demonstrate a substantive error that could justify allowing the appeal. The court was tasked with assessing whether any of these grounds were valid and if they could lead to the overturning of the conviction. The appellant's failure to appear on the scheduled day further complicated the proceedings, but the court continued to evaluate the appeal based on the submitted records.

The Court of Appeal found that none of the grounds of appeal presented by Hainaut contained any substantive matter that could justify the allowance of the appeal. Thomas JA, Helman J, and Atkinson J all concurred that the grounds were not made out and were not sufficient to overturn the conviction. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on the merits. Hainaut's lack of appearance on the scheduled day for the appeal did not influence the court's decision, as the substantive issues were already deemed inadequate.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The judges found that the grounds of appeal did not contain any matter of substance that could justify allowing the appeal. Consequently, the conviction of Jean Baptiste Hainaut for possession of a drug in excess of the prescribed quantity was upheld. The court's decision was final, and no further action could be taken by the appellant regarding this conviction.

R v Hainut

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established