R v Hanley

Case [2020] QCA 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hanley [2020] QCA 276

PARTIES:

R
v
HANLEY, Kevin Patrick
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 316 of 2018
SC No 6 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 26 November 2018 (Burns J)

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2020

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Davis J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where the appellant and the deceased were involved in a fight at a bowls club – where the appellant later attended a house where he knew the deceased was, armed with a loaded rifle – where the deceased was shot with the rifle – where the appellant gave evidence that the safety switch was engaged and that he did not ready the rifle for firing – where the appellant also gave evidence that the deceased grabbed or hit the barrel of the rifle and it fell to the floor and went off – where the appellant could not say whether he caused the rifle to fire – where there was expert evidence from a police officer that the safety switch could not have been engaged – where there was evidence from the deceased’s partner that the appellant walked into the house, raised the weapon and fired at the deceased – where there is an absence of any sensible hypothesis supporting the accidental discharge of the gun – where the appellant submits that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence – whether it was open to the jury to accept the evidence of the police officer and the deceased’s partner – whether on all of the evidence it was open to the jury to convict the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of murder – where the appellant submits that there was a miscarriage of justice in leading evidence of lies told by the appellant regarding the whereabouts of the rifle – where evidence was lead of an electronically recorded conversation between the appellant and a police officer about the disposal of an unregistered rifle involved in the offence – where the evidence was later ruled inadmissible during the trial because it had no probative value – where the trial judge directed the jury to ignore that evidence as it was completely irrelevant – where the recording did not go to the jury – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 2, s 23, s 31, s 261, s 271, s 272, s 291, s 302, s 668E

R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR…

Continue reading R v Hanley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hanley [2020] QCA 276
Case
[2020] QCA 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Hanley, appealed against his conviction for the murder of the deceased. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in the appeal was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, particularly in light of the appellant's claim that the rifle discharged accidentally. The court also needed to decide if there was a miscarriage of justice due to the improper admission or rejection of certain evidence.

The court found that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's version of events, particularly his claim that the rifle discharged accidentally. There was expert evidence from a police officer that the safety switch could not have been engaged, and evidence from the deceased's partner that the appellant raised the weapon and fired at the deceased. The court held that there was no sensible hypothesis supporting the accidental discharge of the gun and that it was open to the jury to convict the appellant based on the evidence presented. The court also dismissed the claim of a miscarriage of justice, noting that the evidence in question was properly excluded by the trial judge and the jury was directed to disregard it.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

By grounds one and two the appellant relies upon the unreasonable verdict ground. Both grounds one and two can be considered together as “intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm”[11] is an element of murder.[12] Ground two is effectively subsumed in ground one. Ground three relies upon the miscarriage of justice ground.[11]Defined in s 2 of the Code.[12]Code, s 302.The evidence The appellant, the deceased, Rachel Binns and Beyana Kingston were all at the Millmerran Bowls Club on 13 October 2016. Ms Binns was in a romantic relationship with the deceased but the two lived at separate residences. Beyana Kingston was Ms Binns’ daughter and was 11 years of age at the time. At the bowls club an argument broke out between the deceased and Ms Binns. The argument involved the deceased knocking or chesting Ms Binns and probably attempting to head butt her. The appellant intervened and removed the deceased to the car park, but the deceased later returned. Upon the deceased’s return, a fight ensued between the deceased and the appellant. That was broken up by others at the bowls club. Ms Binns, Beyana and the deceased left the bowls club together. After delivering the deceased to his home, Ms Binns travelled with her daughter, Beyana, to her home. From her home, Ms Binns attempted to telephone the appellant. She could not raise him. Ms Binns then telephoned Kay Bruin, the appellant’s partner, and spoke to her for approximately 12 minutes commencing at 8.31 pm. Ms Bruin was not at the bowls club during the evening but was at her home which she shared with the appellant. There was another telephone call for about 15 minutes again when Ms Bruin contacted Ms Binns. That occurred at 8.48 pm. There is dispute about what the two women discussed in those telephone conversations. Ms Bruin’s version is that Ms Binns was generally frightened of the deceased, had expressed concerns that he might attend at her house and that she had locked herself in, hid her car and turned the lights off. Ms Binns said that while she told Ms Bruin about the altercation at the bowls club, she did not express to Ms Bruin any fear of the deceased. Sometime after the telephone conversation which commenced at 8.48 pm, the appellant arrived home. Then at 9.30 pm, Ms Bruin received a text message from Ms Binns which said “He’s here”. Ms Bruin took that to mean that the deceased had arrived at Ms Binns’ house and Ms Bruin and the appellant decided that they should go there. Ms Bruin and the appellant then travelled to Ms Binns’ home. The appellant took with him a .22 calibre rifle. There were grounds for the appellant to be concerned that he might be met with aggression by the deceased. The deceased was on parole having been convicted of an offence of violence. As already explained, there had been a physical altercation between the deceased and Ms Binns and a physical altercation between the deceased and the appellant at the bowls club. He knew of the text message that had been sent by Ms Binns to Ms Bruin and he knew (because Ms Bruin told him) of the contents of the telephone conversation between Ms Bruin and Ms Binns. The deceased, he thought, possessed a pistol.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.