R v Hall - [2001] NSWCCA 202

CITATION: Regina v Hall [2001] NSWCCA 202

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60397/99

HEARING DATE(S): 23 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Brian Morgan Hall

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Sully J at 2; Howie J at 69

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70047/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hidden J

COUNSEL : E. A. Wilkins - Crown
T. A. Game SC/T. Molomby - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
R v Annakin & ors (1988) 17 NSWLR 202
R v White, Eaves and Parker (1988) 17 NSWLR 195
R v Johnson (1917) 17 SR (NSW) 481 at 482-4
R v Sorlie (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 532 at 539
R v Parker (1974) 1 NSWLR 14 at 18C
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 at 266(44)
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
McKnoulty (1994) 77 A Crim R 333 at 338,339
Gordon (1991) 57 A Crim R 413 at 418
Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149 at 154
Gardener (1989) 41 A Crim R 279
Mui Ky Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1 at 14
Peisley (1990) 54 A Crim R 42 at 48
Murnin, NSWCCA, 16/8/85
Slattery (1996) 90 A Crim R 519 at 522, 523

DECISION: (1) That the appeal against convictions be dismissed (2) That leave be granted to appeal against sentence (3) That the appeal against sentence be dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60397/99

MEAGHER JA

SULLY J

HOWIE JA

25 May 2001

REGINA v Brian Morgan HALL

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: I agree with Sully J.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60397/99

MEAGHER JA

SULLY J

HOWIE J

25 May 2001

REGINA v Brian Morgan HALL

JUDGMENT

2 SULLY J: On 31 May 1999 the appellant, Mr. Brian Morgan Hall, was presented before Hidden J of this Court for trial upon an indictment containing ten counts. The appellant pleaded not guilty to eight of those counts and guilty to the remaining two counts. The Crown did not accept two pleas of guilty in full discharge of the indictment, and the appellant was put accordingly upon trial by jury. On 16 June 1999, the eleventh day of the trial, the jury returned verdicts finding the applicant guilty on four counts and not guilty on three counts.

3 In order to minimise confusion, it is expedient to tabulate as follows the relevant details of the ten counts charged in the indictment. All counts, except count 7, alleged offences committed on 15 December 1996 at Drummoyne. Count 7 alleged an offence committed on 22 December 1996 at Campbelltown.

COUNT CHARGE PLEA VERDICT

1 Wound Mark Grant Webber with intent to murder him Not Guilty Not Guilty

2 Alternative to Count 1: maliciously wound Mark Grant Webber with intent to do grievous bodily harm to him Not Guilty Guilty

3 Alternative to Count 2: drunken driving involving an…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2001] NSWCCA 202
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date: 25 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Hall, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal against conviction and sentence by Brian Morgan Hall, who was convicted of murder and other related offences following a series of incidents involving the use of a motor vehicle as a weapon. The appellant argued that there were errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, that the verdicts were a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge should have left the issue of manslaughter by reason of provocation to the jury. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury were not misdirections and that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence. The Court held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to leave the issue of provocation to the jury, as there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the appellant had lost self-control due to provocation. The Court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence imposed was within the range of a properly exercised sentencing discretion.

Orders