R v Harnden - [2003] QCA 340

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Harnden [2003] QCA 340

PARTIES:

R
v
HARNDEN, Christopher John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 436 of 2002
DC No 281 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – OTHER OFFENCES - where appellant convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice – whether police unfairly delayed in charging the appellant with the offence – whether two witnesses collaborated statements - whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES - where evidence by witness inconsistent with statement - whether learned primary judge misdirected the jury as to the onus of proof

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where appellant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment – where offence occurred when appellant on bail – where sentence ordered to be served concurrently with an earlier sentence which concerned separate and distinct offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, followed
MFA v The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139, followed
R v Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd & Doube [1996] 1 Qd R 418, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant was convicted in the Maryborough District Court on 4 December 2002 of attempting to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. He appeals against that conviction on the ground that it is unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law and applies for leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. He is self-represented and has made clear written submissions, which he has articulately expanded upon orally.

The appellant was originally charged with three counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice at Hervey Bay, the first on 13 April 2002 and the second and third on a date unknown between 30 June 2002 and 1 August 2002. He was arraigned only on counts 1 and 3. The second count was subsequently the subject of a nolle prosequi. He was convicted on count 1 and found not guilty on count 3.

It is necessary to review the evidence in order to deal with the arguments raised in the appeal. Ms Carolyn Frehmann gave evidence that on 13 April 2002 she was at the Bay Central Shopping Centre, Hervey Bay, with…

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 Harnden

Details

AGLC: R v Harnden [2003] QCA 340
Case: [2003] QCA 340
Decision Date: 8 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harnden involved the appellant, who was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, with the primary judge's decisions being scrutinised. The appellant argued that the police had unfairly delayed in charging him with the offence, and that there was evidence of collaboration between two witnesses in their statements. The appellant further argued that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law.

The legal issues before the court included whether the police had unfairly delayed in charging the appellant, whether the witnesses had collaborated in their statements, and whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law. The court considered whether the primary judge had misdirected the jury as to the onus of proof, particularly in relation to inconsistencies in the evidence provided by a witness. The court also examined the sentence imposed on the appellant, considering whether it was manifestly excessive.

In dismissing the appeal against conviction, the court found that there was no unfairness in the police delay in charging the appellant. The court also found that the witnesses did not collaborate in their statements, and that the conviction was safe and satisfactory and according to law. The court held that the primary judge had not misdirected the jury as to the onus of proof, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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.

CITATION:	R v Harnden [2003] QCA 340
PARTIES:	R v HARNDEN, Christopher John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 436 of 2002 DC No 281 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 April 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – OTHER OFFENCES - where appellant convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice – whether police unfairly delayed in charging the appellant with the offence – whether two witnesses collaborated statements - whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES - where evidence by witness inconsistent with statement - whether learned primary judge misdirected the jury as to the onus of proof CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where appellant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment – where offence occurred when appellant on bail – where sentence ordered to be served concurrently with an earlier sentence which concerned separate and distinct offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, followed MFA v The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139, followed R v Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd & Doube [1996] 1 Qd R 418, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent