R v Hansen - [2014] QCA 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hansen [2014] QCA 245

PARTIES:

R
v
HANSEN, Thomas Grant
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 116 of 2014
DC No 646 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Alan Wilson J
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 – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of unlawful possession of a weapon and fined $1,000, with a conviction recorded – where at the same trial the jury could not reach a verdict on a second charge of armed robbery – where the appellant contends that the jury’s guilty verdict cannot be supported by any reasonable view of the evidence – where the appellant contends that his conviction for the possession charge is on this basis unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that it should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal substituted – whether the evidence presented at trial is capable of satisfying the meaning of ‘possession’ under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32AA
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 50, Schedule 2
Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 3

Billing v Catlin; Ex parte Billing [1983] 2 Qd R 760, cited
Dayman v Newsome; Ex parte Dayman [1973] Qd R 399, cited
Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 475, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Yeates v Hoare [1981] VR 1034; [1981] VicRp 91, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis QC, with J R Jones, for the appellant
J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Alan Wilson J's reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Alan Wilson J and the order proposed by his Honour.

ALAN WILSON J: The appellant Thomas Grant Hansen was convicted after a trial by jury in May 2014 of one count of unlawful possession of a weapon. He was fined $1,000. A conviction was recorded. He was also charged with armed robbery. The jury could not reach a verdict on that count, and he was discharged.

He appeals on the sole ground that the conviction for possession is unsafe and unsatisfactory and should be quashed, and that a verdict of acquittal should be entered. His complaint is that the verdict was unreasonable, and could not be supported by the evidence.[1]
[1]Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1).

The charge against him was…

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 Hansen

Details

AGLC: R v Hansen [2014] QCA 245
Case: [2014] QCA 245
Decision Date: 30 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hansen, appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. The conviction resulted in a fine of $1,000, with the recording of the conviction. The trial also included a charge of armed robbery, but the jury could not reach a verdict on this charge. Hansen contended that his conviction for the possession charge was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and he sought to have it quashed with a verdict of acquittal substituted.

The primary legal issue was whether the evidence presented at trial was capable of satisfying the meaning of 'possession' under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). Hansen argued that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that could support a conviction for unlawful possession. The court needed to determine if the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, and whether the conviction was therefore valid.

The court examined the evidence presented at trial and determined that it was capable of satisfying the statutory definition of 'possession'. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Hansen guilty of the unlawful possession charge. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the fine imposed. The conviction for the possession charge was deemed safe and satisfactory, and no further orders were made.

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 Hansen [2014] QCA 245
PARTIES:	R v HANSEN, Thomas Grant (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 116 of 2014 DC No 646 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 September 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Alan Wilson J 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 – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of unlawful possession of a weapon and fined $1,000, with a conviction recorded – where at the same trial the jury could not reach a verdict on a second charge of armed robbery – where the appellant contends that the jury’s guilty verdict cannot be supported by any reasonable view of the evidence – where the appellant contends that his conviction for the possession charge is on this basis unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that it should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal substituted – whether the evidence presented at trial is capable of satisfying the meaning of ‘possession’ under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32AA Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 50, Schedule 2 Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 3 Billing v Catlin; Ex parte Billing [1983] 2 Qd R 760, cited Dayman v Newsome; Ex parte Dayman [1973] Qd R 399, cited Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 475, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited Yeates v Hoare [1981] VR 1034; [1981] VicRp 91, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Davis QC, with J R Jones, for the appellant J Robson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent