R v Hanson; R v Ettridge - [2003] QCA 488

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hanson; R v Ettridge [2003] QCA 488

PARTIES:

R
v
HANSON, Pauline Lee
(appellant/applicant)

R
v
ETTRIDGE, David William

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 270 of 2003
CA No 275 of 2003
CA No 274 of 2003

DC No 2949 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Application

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Davies JA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

In respect of each appeal:
1. allow the appeal
2. quash the conviction or convictions of the appellant, set aside the sentence or sentences imposed in the District Court on 20 August 2003, and in respect of the indictment, direct that judgments and verdicts of acquittal be entered

3. applications for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS: OFFENCES UNDER S 408C CRIMINAL CODE – DETERMINATION WHETHER APPLICANTS JOINED POLITICAL PARTY OR SEPARATE SUPPORT ORGANISATION – APPLICATION OF OBJECTIVE CONTRACT THEORY – IRRELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT OR INTERPRETATION – WHETHER POLITICAL PARTY AND SUPPORT ORGANISATION ARE “RELATED POLITICAL PARTIES” UNDER ELECTORAL ACT 1992 – WHETHER JURY ADEQUATELY INSTRUCTED ON AIDING UNDER S 7 CRIMINAL CODE – WHETHER INSUFFICIENCY OF CROWN EVIDENCE SUCH AS TO PRECLUDE FRESH TRIAL

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 408C, s 668E

Electoral Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 6, s 70

Australian Energy Limited v Lennard Oil NL [1986] 2 Qd R 216, approved
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981-1982) 149 CLR 337, approved
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered
R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296, considered
Sharples v O’Shea [2000] QCA 23; Appeal No 7592 of 1999, 10 March 2000, distinguished

Taylor v Johnson (1982-1983) 151 CLR 422, approved

COUNSEL:

C E K Hampson QC, with K S Howe, for the appellant in CA No 270 of 2003 and for the applicant in CA No 275 of 2003
B W Walker SC, with P J Callaghan, for the appellant in CA No 274 of 2003

A J Rafter, with B G Campbell, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 270 of 2003 and for the applicant in CA No 275 of 2003
Boe Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 274 of 2003

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: Each appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court on 20 August 2003 of the offence, under s 408C(1)(f) of the Criminal Code, of dishonestly inducing the Electoral Commissioner (on 4 December 1997) to register “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation” as a political party under the Electoral Act 1992 (although the Electoral Commissioner was lawfully entitled to abstain from doing that). Each…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hanson; R v Ettridge and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] QCA 488
Decision Date: 6 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Hanson and Ettridge, were convicted by a jury in the District Court of Victoria for offences under section 408C of the Criminal Code, relating to the illegal registration of political party members. The case was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the applicants had joined a political party or a separate support organisation, and whether they were guilty of the charged offences. The court was also required to decide whether the jury had been adequately instructed on the concept of aiding under section 7 of the Criminal Code and whether the insufficiency of the Crown's evidence precluded a fresh trial.

The court held that the objective contract theory should be applied in determining whether the applicants had joined a political party or a support organisation. Subjective statements of intent or interpretation were deemed irrelevant in this determination. The court further found that the political party and the support organisation were not "related political parties" under the Electoral Act 1992. The court held that the jury had not been adequately instructed on the concept of aiding under section 7 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the court found that the insufficiency of the Crown's evidence precluded a fresh trial. The court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions and sentences imposed, and directed that judgments and verdicts of acquittal be entered. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of each appeal:

1. allow the appeal

2. quash the conviction or convictions of the appellant, set aside the sentence or sentences imposed in the District Court on 20 August 2003, and in respect of the indictment, direct that judgments and verdicts of acquittal be entered

3. applications for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Hanson; R v Ettridge [2003] QCA 488
PARTIES:	R v HANSON, Pauline Lee (appellant/applicant) R v ETTRIDGE, David William (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 270 of 2003 CA No 275 of 2003 CA No 274 of 2003 DC No 2949 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Sentence Application Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 November 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Davies JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	In respect of each appeal: 1. allow the appeal 2. quash the conviction or convictions of the appellant, set aside the sentence or sentences imposed in the District Court on 20 August 2003, and in respect of the indictment, direct that judgments and verdicts of acquittal be entered 3. applications for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS: OFFENCES UNDER S 408C CRIMINAL CODE – DETERMINATION WHETHER APPLICANTS JOINED POLITICAL PARTY OR SEPARATE SUPPORT ORGANISATION – APPLICATION OF OBJECTIVE CONTRACT THEORY – IRRELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT OR INTERPRETATION – WHETHER POLITICAL PARTY AND SUPPORT ORGANISATION ARE “RELATED POLITICAL PARTIES” UNDER ELECTORAL ACT 1992 – WHETHER JURY ADEQUATELY INSTRUCTED ON AIDING UNDER S 7 CRIMINAL CODE – WHETHER INSUFFICIENCY OF CROWN EVIDENCE SUCH AS TO PRECLUDE FRESH TRIAL Criminal Code (Qld), s 7, s 408C, s 668E Electoral Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 6, s 70 Australian Energy Limited v Lennard Oil NL [1986] 2 Qd R 216, approved Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1981-1982) 149 CLR 337, approved Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered R v B & P [1999] 1 Qd R 296, considered Sharples v O’Shea [2000] QCA 23; Appeal No 7592 of 1999, 10 March 2000, distinguished Taylor v Johnson (1982-1983) 151 CLR 422, approved
COUNSEL:	C E K Hampson QC, with K S Howe, for the appellant in CA No 270 of 2003 and for the applicant in CA No 275 of 2003 B W Walker SC, with P J Callaghan, for the appellant in CA No 274 of 2003 A J Rafter, with B G Campbell, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Nyst Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 270 of 2003 and for the applicant in CA No 275 of 2003 Boe Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 274 of 2003 Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent