R v Hallett - [1997] QCA 418

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 418

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 301 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Hallett]

THE QUEEN

WAYNE LESLIE HALLETT

(Applicant) Appellant
Davies JA Williams J Lee J

Judgment delivered 21 November 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, all concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - stalking -
admissibility of evidence - “equipment” found in hire car -
identification of voice over telephone - exclusion of evidence -
allegations of a “set up” - appeal dismissed.
CRIMINAL LAW - Leave to appeal against sentence - stalking -
two years’ imprisonment - consideration of circumstances not
alleged as aggravating circumstances - whether manifestly
excessive - application refused.

Bulejcik v. R (1995) 185 CLR 375

Counsel:	Mr RJ Clutterbuck for the applicant/appellant. Mr C Chowdhury for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	16 October 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered 21 November 1997

I agree with the reasons for judgment of Williams J. and with the orders he proposes.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered 21 November 1997

The appellant was found guilty in the Gladstone District Court on 25 July 1997 of the offence of stalking. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years. He appeals against conviction on a number of grounds, and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Section 359A of the Criminal Code makes stalking an offence. Relevantly subsection (2) defines stalking in the following terms:

“A person (the “first person”) unlawfully stalks another person (the
“second person”) if -
(a)       the first person engages in a course of conduct involving doing a concerning act on at least two separate occasions to another person or other persons (whether the second person, another or others); and
(b)       the first persons intends that the second person be aware that the course of conduct is directed at the second person, even if the concerning acts or particular concerning acts are done to, or to the property of, a person other than the second person; and
(c)        the second person is aware that the course of conduct is directed at the second person; and
(d)       the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person in the second person’s circumstances to believe that an offensive act (a
“concerning offensive act”) is likely to happen.”

For purposes of the section the term “concerning act” is defined in subsection (7) as follows

“ “Concerning act” means any of the following acts -
(a)       Following, loitering near, watching or approaching another person;
(b)       Telephoning or otherwise contacting another person;
(c)        Loitering near, watching, approaching or entering a place where another person lives, works or visits;
(d)       Interfering with property in the possession of another…

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 Hallett

Details

AGLC: R v Hallett [1997] QCA 418
Case: [1997] QCA 418
Decision Date: 21/11/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, the case of R v Hallett involved an appeal against conviction and sentence by Wayne Leslie Hallett, who was found guilty of stalking. The court was required to decide whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The primary legal issues included the admissibility of evidence regarding items found in the appellant's hire car and the reliability of voice identification evidence from a phone call. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge properly exercised discretion in excluding certain evidence and if the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The court concluded that the evidence regarding the items found in the hire car was properly admitted as it was relevant to the appellant's intent and actions on the night in question. The voice identification evidence was also deemed admissible after the trial judge provided the appropriate warning to the jury. The exclusion of evidence regarding an alleged prior inconsistent statement was found to be within the trial judge's discretion and did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court determined that the sentence of two years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's persistent campaign of intimidation and the serious nature of the offences.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders