R v Hanlon - [2003] QCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hanlon [2003] QCA 75

PARTIES:

R
v
HANLON, Terence George
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 416 of 2002
CA No 361 of 2002
DC No 1986 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application
Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – OTHER CASES – where appellant convicted of arson – whether verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence – whether testimony of witness was so unreliable that no jury could act upon it

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FIRST OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to six years imprisonment – where appellant had no prior convictions – whether sentence imposed is within an appropriate range for racially or religiously motivated arson of an unoccupied building causing substantial damage – whether learned trial judge erred in finding that the arson was racially motivated

R v Clarke [1995] QCA 423; CA No 270 of 1995, 25 August 1995, applied
R v Gaunt [2001] QCA 256; CA No 382 of 2000; 29 June 2001, applied
R v Smith [2001] QCA 476; CA No 207 of 2001, 2 November 2001, applied

COUNSEL:

C F Wilson for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bell Miller for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: On 10 October 2002 the appellant was convicted after a three day trial of arson of the Kuraby mosque on 22 September 2001. The appellant appeals against that conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence; the testimony of Natalie Demillo Evans was so unreliable that no jury could act upon it and it was not sufficiently bolstered by independent evidence to render it reliable.

The consideration of this ground of appeal requires a review of the evidence. Ms Evans gave evidence that she was the appellant's girlfriend. During the afternoon before the Kuraby mosque fire the appellant said he wanted the mosque, situated about a five minute walk from his home, to be burnt down. That night they went to Rogues Nightclub at about 7 pm. Ms Evans gave evidence that she consumed a few drinks but "Wasn't drunk, just a little tipsy." They left the nightclub at about 12.30 am and walked home; this takes about 30 minutes. They sat for a time on the school oval next to the appellant's home. The appellant yelled out to a woman near the mosque, "Let the war begin" and "The place is going to be burnt down."

They then went…

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 Hanlon

Details

AGLC: R v Hanlon [2003] QCA 75
Case: [2003] QCA 75
Decision Date: 28 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hanlon, the appellant was convicted of arson in relation to an unoccupied building. The matter was appealed to the court, challenging the conviction on the basis that it was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, the appellant sought leave to appeal the sentence imposed, which was six years imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for a first offender who committed racially or religiously motivated arson causing substantial damage. The court had to consider whether the learned trial judge erred in finding that the arson was racially motivated and if the sentence was within an appropriate range for such an offence.

The court found that the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of a witness, was sufficient to support the conviction. It held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable and that the trial judge did not err in finding the arson to be racially motivated. The court also considered the sentence imposed, noting that while the appellant was a first offender, the offence was serious and warranted a substantial sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was within an appropriate range and that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused. The court upheld both the conviction and the sentence, finding that they were supported by the evidence and appropriate for the offence committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Hanlon [2003] QCA 75
PARTIES:	R v HANLON, Terence George (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 416 of 2002 CA No 361 of 2002 DC No 1986 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – OTHER CASES – where appellant convicted of arson – whether verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence – whether testimony of witness was so unreliable that no jury could act upon it CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FIRST OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to six years imprisonment – where appellant had no prior convictions – whether sentence imposed is within an appropriate range for racially or religiously motivated arson of an unoccupied building causing substantial damage – whether learned trial judge erred in finding that the arson was racially motivated R v Clarke [1995] QCA 423; CA No 270 of 1995, 25 August 1995, applied R v Gaunt [2001] QCA 256; CA No 382 of 2000; 29 June 2001, applied R v Smith [2001] QCA 476; CA No 207 of 2001, 2 November 2001, applied
COUNSEL:	C F Wilson for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bell Miller for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent