R v Hallin - [2004] QCA 18

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hallin [2004] QCA 18

PARTIES:

R
v
HALLIN, Daniel Michael
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 119 of 2003
SC No 152 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder and threatening violence – where criminal responsibility based on s 7 and s 8 Criminal Code (Qld) – whether it was open to the jury to find that the commission of the offences by the co-offender were a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose of the appellant and co-offender

Criminal Code (Qld) , s 7, s 8

R v Georgiou, Edwards & Heferen; R v Georgiou & Heferen; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 206; CA Nos 234, 244, 271, 265, 266, 276 of 2001, 14 June 2002, disapproved
R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1, applied
Stuart v R (1974) 134 CLR 426, applied

COUNSEL:

B W Farr for the appellant
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Jerrard JA that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and with his reasons.

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and with the order he proposes.

JERRARD JA: Early in the night of Christmas Eve 2001 Kenneth Walter Doig was murdered in a public park on the outskirts of Helidon and adjacent to a public highway running between Brisbane and Toowoomba. A short time later and a little distance away his twin brother Brett John Doig and his mother Helen May Doig were both shot, but fortunately were not killed. On 26 March 2003 the appellant Daniel Michael Hallin was convicted by a jury of the murder of Kenneth Doig and the attempted murder of his brother and mother. He was also convicted of the unlawful use of a motor vehicle in Kenneth Doig’s possession and of having pointed a firearm at another person on 24 December 2001, a Timothy Rex Barnes, whilst demanding that Mr Barnes get out of his vehicle, which act was likely to cause Mr Barnes to fear bodily harm. On 28 March 2003 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life for murdering Kenneth Doig and to shorter concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The prosecution did not allege that Mr Hallin himself actually killed Kenneth Doig or fired the shots which struck Brett and Helen Doig, nor that Mr Hallin…

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 Hallin

Details

AGLC: R v Hallin [2004] QCA 18
Case: [2004] QCA 18
Decision Date: 13 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hallin, appealed his conviction for murder, two counts of attempted murder, and threatening violence. The trial court found him guilty based on his criminal responsibility under sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld), holding that the commission of the offences by a co-offender was a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's directions to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable.

The central issue was whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the commission of the offences by the co-offender was a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose shared by the appellant and the co-offender. The appellant argued that the evidence did not support the jury's conclusion that the commission of the offences was a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose. The court examined the evidence presented and the trial judge's directions to assess the reasonableness of the jury's verdict.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the commission of the offences by the co-offender was a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose. The trial judge had properly directed the jury on the principles of criminal responsibility under sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The Court of Appeal held that the jury's verdict was neither unreasonable nor insupportable, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellant's conviction for murder, two counts of attempted murder, and threatening violence was therefore affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 Hallin [2004] QCA 18
PARTIES:	R v HALLIN, Daniel Michael (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 119 of 2003 SC No 152 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder and threatening violence – where criminal responsibility based on s 7 and s 8 Criminal Code (Qld) – whether it was open to the jury to find that the commission of the offences by the co-offender were a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose of the appellant and co-offender Criminal Code (Qld) , s 7, s 8 R v Georgiou, Edwards & Heferen; R v Georgiou & Heferen; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 206; CA Nos 234, 244, 271, 265, 266, 276 of 2001, 14 June 2002, disapproved R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1, applied Stuart v R (1974) 134 CLR 426, applied
COUNSEL:	B W Farr for the appellant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent