SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Harms [2000] QCA 419 PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
HARMS, Colin Gordon
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 3 of 2000
SC No 690 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 10 October 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 3 October 2000 JUDGES: McPherson and Davies JJA, Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – STRIKING OUT AND WARNING TO JURY TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE – appellant charged with attempted murder of a person he believed was about to reveal the nature of his drug related enterprises to authorities – where evidence elicited during cross-examination of previous threats to kill other persons who threatened to reveal appellant’s drug dealing activities – where trial judge ruled such evidence to be inadmissible and directed jury to put it from their minds – where there was further evidence of the appellant directing a third party to hide the gun used in the assault – where the trial judge gave similar directions to the jury - whether the appellant was deprived of the chance of a fair trial
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where Crown accepted that the evidence was inadmissible – whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict in the absence of the inadmissible evidence
Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1A)
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 676, considered
Maric v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 513, applied
R v Webb and Hay (1992) 59 SASR 563, applied
Webb and Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, appliedCOUNSEL: D Murray for the applicant/appellant
C Heaton for the respondentSOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court of a single count of attempted murder, and was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years and six months.
The evidence at trial disclosed that the appellant, assisted by one Laing, was a dealer in amphetamines from the appellant's house in East Ipswich, where the drugs were kept in a safe in his bedroom beside the bed under which he kept a sawn‑off .22 calibre firearm. Laing and a woman named Cecily Stafford were also living in the house at that time. The evidence at trial revealed that the appellant was in charge of the drug transactions taking place there. He is a man who was 50 years of age at the time.…
Continue reading R v Harms
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Harms [2000] QCA 419
- Case
- [2000] QCA 419
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant’s right to a fair trial was compromised by the trial judge’s decisions to exclude certain pieces of evidence and to direct the jury to disregard other evidence. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the exclusion of evidence regarding previous threats made by the appellant to others who threatened to expose his drug-related activities, as well as the direction to disregard evidence about the appellant instructing a third party to hide the weapon used in the assault, was prejudicial. The court also had to consider if, in the absence of this inadmissible evidence, the remaining evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict the appellant of attempted murder.
In resolving the appeal, the court examined the principles surrounding the admission and exclusion of evidence and the impact of these decisions on the fairness of the trial. The court noted that the Crown accepted the evidence in question was inadmissible. However, the court held that the remaining admissible evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict the appellant. The court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury to disregard the inadmissible evidence did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it deprived him of a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed. 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.