R v Hanson - [1995] QCA 385

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 385
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 6 of 1995

Brisbane

[R. v. Hanson]

THE QUEEN

ROBERT NEIL HANSON

Appellant

Davies J.A. Moynihan J. Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 29/08/1995

Joint reasons for judgment by Davies J.A. and Moynihan J.; separate reasons for judgment by Shepherdson J., agreeing with the orders made.

THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE VERDICT IS SET ASIDE AND THE CONVICTION

QUASHED. A NEW TRIAL IS ORDERED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW; DIRECTIONS TO JURY - whether trial Judge directed the jury sufficiently as to the elements of the offence. R. v. Cook, Hartigan and McCart (C.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67 of 1994, judgment delivered 23 June 1994).
EVIDENCE - identification; whether non-expert opinion evidence admissible. R. v. Griffith (C.A. No. 474 of 1994, judgment delivered 6 May 1995).
Counsel:	Appellant appeared on own behalf Mr. W. Clark for the respondent
Solicitors:	Appellant appeared on own behalf

Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date:

15 May 1995

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A. AND MOYNIHAN J.

Judgment delivered the 29th day of August 1995

The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 25 November last of taking part in a riot of prisoners and, whilst taking part in that riot, wilfully and unlawfully damaging property. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving six months of that term. He appeals against that conviction and seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

There is no doubt that on 12 November 1992 a riot of prisoners occurred in the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Brisbane. The question at the appellant's trial was whether he took part in that riot. Although the appellant was represented by counsel at his trial he conducted his appeal in person. His Notice of Appeal against conviction was on a ground which he did not pursue and which he conceded had no substance. Without any formal leave the appellant then sought and was allowed to argue a number of other grounds through written submissions and oral argument. Those grounds, as they were ultimately pursued in oral argument, may be summarised as follows:

1.          the learned trial Judge's directions to the jury on the elements of s.92 of the Corrective Services Act were defective in that they were incorrect or insufficient;
2.          his directions failed to warn the jury of the onus on the Crown to prove the unlawful assembly and the appellant's participation in such unlawful assembly;
3.          the learned Judge failed to accede to an application for redirection on the limits of particulars of the unlawful assembly in the alternative charge left to the jury;
4.          the Crown should have specifically charged the appellant with unlawful assembly if it wished that charge to go to the jury on an alternative basis;
5.          the learned Judge erred in directing the jury that the failure of the prison staff to warn the prisoners to desist from…

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 Hanson

Details

AGLC: R v Hanson [1995] QCA 385
Case: [1995] QCA 385
Decision Date: 29/08/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hanson, the respondent was convicted of various charges related to drug trafficking and was brought before the court for sentencing. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury regarding the essential elements of the offence. The court was tasked with examining whether the trial judge had sufficiently instructed the jury on the necessary components of the offence, and if not, whether this constituted a significant error that warranted a new trial. This appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of the principles set out in R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart, where the Court of Appeal had established guidelines for jury directions in criminal cases.

The court considered the trial judge's directions in light of the established legal framework, focusing on whether the jury had been correctly informed about the burden of proof and the specific elements of the drug trafficking offences. The court examined whether the judge had articulated the essential components of the offence clearly enough, ensuring that the jury understood the requisite mental state and conduct for a conviction. The appeal also examined whether the judge's directions aligned with the precedents set by R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart, particularly in relation to the clarity and completeness of the jury instructions.

Upon review, the court found that the trial judge had indeed provided sufficient directions to the jury. The judge had articulated the necessary elements of the offence and the burden of proof in a manner consistent with the legal precedents. The court concluded that there was no significant error in the jury directions that would warrant a new trial. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the conviction and upholding the trial judge's conduct in directing the jury.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The conviction and sentence remained in effect, and the respondent's conviction for the drug trafficking offences was upheld.

Orders