R v Hardie - [1999] QCA 352

99.352

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA THOMAS JA CHESTERMAN J

CA No 178 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.
DANIEL HARDIE

(Applicant) Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 24/08/99
240899 T14/HMH8 M/T COA204/99
PINCUS JA: The appellant was convicted, after a trial
before the Chief Justice, of attempted murder. He
appeals against his conviction and applies for leave to
appeal against sentence. The notice of appeal against
conviction says that the verdict was unsafe and
unsatisfactory.

There was evidence that the appellant, on the evening of 7 July 1998, came to the house of one Murray at Scarborough. Later Murray, a person called Stephens and the appellant went out together in a truck and this was done, as Murray swore, to obtain some car parts. In his argument to us today the appellant has emphasised that this was the purpose of the journey. The appellant asked his companions to wait and he went inside a house at Georgina Street, Woody Point alone. Then, it is said, the house was occupied by the complainant and a Ms Samuels.

The Crown case was that the appellant obtained a knife
from the kitchen and he told Ms Samuels that when the
complainant, who was then talking on the telephone, got
off the phone he was going to stab her in the eye.
There was evidence that the appellant struck the
complainant and threatened to kill her, pushed her out
the door and told her to keep walking. After they had
walked some distance, according to the evidence, the
appellant renewed his threat to kill, grabbed the
complainant and cut her throat from left to right, and
240899 T14/HMH8 M/T COA204/99
also stabbed her in the back of the head and in the back
left shoulder area.
In the appellant's summary of argument it is said that
he had no intention in coming to the premises other than
to pick up car parts, and in his oral argument today
this has been repeated. The summary goes on:

"Some time on entering the premises a argument and fight

started and subsequently [the complainant] was
subsequently assaulted and stabbed by the
applicant."

The point taken is that the Crown did not prove intention to kill.

I should mention the medical evidence, which was given by telephone. A Dr Peterson examined the complainant and found that, as a result of having her throat cut, there was a 15 centimetre cut from the left side to the right side of the neck and it was one to one-and-a-half centimetres deep. There had been substantial blood loss. There was also a two centimetre long cut immediately below the scapula bone on the left side at the back, which caused a collapse of the lung. To cause that, according to the doctor, there would have had to be a penetration of the order of one and a half to two centimetres. There was a third cut, about three centimetres in length, at the base of the skull.

In cross-examination of the complainant, counsel who

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 Hardie

Details

AGLC: R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352
Case: [1999] QCA 352
Decision Date: 24/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hardie before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the appellant, Daniel Hardie, appealing against his conviction for attempted murder and applying for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The trial judge had found Hardie guilty following a trial where he was accused of attacking a woman, cutting her throat, and stabbing her multiple times. The appeal against conviction centred on the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to kill, while the appeal against sentence focused on the length of the 14-year imprisonment term.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to kill, and second, whether the sentence was appropriate given the appellant’s criminal history and the nature of the offence. Regarding the conviction, the court had to consider if the jury could rationally conclude that Hardie intended to kill the victim based on the evidence presented, including the victim’s testimony, the appellant’s post-attack statements, and the nature of the injuries inflicted. Concerning the sentence, the court had to assess whether the length of the sentence was justified in light of the appellant’s criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the legislative changes affecting parole eligibility.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to kill, despite some inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the victim’s account despite the discrepancies, and the additional evidence of the appellant’s post-attack boasting supported the intent to kill. As for the sentence, the court determined that the 14-year term was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the severity of the offence, and the legislative changes affecting parole eligibility. The court declined to reduce the sentence based on these changes, adhering to the legislative intent.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence, upholding the trial judge’s decisions.

Orders