R v Harris - [2001] QCA 150

[2001] QCA 150

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
HOLMES J

CA No 30 of 2001

THE QUEEN

DARREN JAMES HARRIS

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/04/2001

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence in this case is Darren James Harris. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the Supreme Court at Brisbane of one count of murdering Heather Edgerton, and sentenced to life imprisonment on
4 November 1996 which, of course, is over four years ago.

On 27 October 1990 at Woodenbong in New South Wales the applicant and another man named Carne were involved in the shooting of a man named Jacobson. The applicant shot Jacobson in the head during a possum hunting expedition. The body was loaded into a brown Morris 1100 and dumped later that night. For this offence, the applicant was convicted of murder in New South Wales and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. On the next day after murdering Jacobson (i.e. on 28 October 1990), the applicant and Carne travelled over the border into Queensland.

According to the applicant's version of events given at the trial of Carne, the car broke down by the side of the road and, seeing it stranded, Heather Edgerton pulled her car over to the side apparently in order to give assistance. The car in which the applicant and Carne were travelling had a large quantity of cannabis on the back seat and the applicant, apparently becoming convinced that she had seen it, shot her in the head.

Her body was concealed in the car and then later disposed of. The applicant gave evidence at Carne's trial admitting the shooting and claiming that Carne was not the person with him. Carne was convicted but successfully appealed and then pleaded guilty as an accessory after the fact.

The grounds advanced in support of the application are, first, that in imposing life imprisonment the learned sentencing Judge ignored the totality principle of sentencing. The applicant claims to explain the lengthy delay since 1996 in making the application as being due to the disadvantage he has been under in having no legal representation or advice and no legal resources available at Lotus Glen Correctional Centre.

Alternatively, he submits that the prosecution caused a delay of six years between his arrest and his sentence for this offence. That is, however, plainly not so. The delay was caused by his having to serve his sentence in New South Wales for murdering Jacobson. He also submits that the intervention of the State boundaries denied him the opportunity of having both offences dealt with together as in The Queen v. Mill (1988) 166 CLR 59. His Honour the learned sentencing Judge, at page 140 of the transcript of the sentence hearing, is reported as having stated that he was required to give a comment in regard to the amount of time spent in prison. His Honour, it…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2001] QCA 150
Case: [2001] QCA 150
Decision Date: 19/04/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harris, Darren James Harris sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. Harris had been convicted of murdering Heather Edgerton and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996. He had also previously been convicted of murder in New South Wales. Harris argued that the sentence imposed did not take into account his time spent in custody in New South Wales and that the principle of totality in sentencing had been ignored. He also contended that the intervention of state boundaries meant that he was denied the opportunity of having both offences dealt with together.

The court examined the legal issues presented, including whether the sentencing judge was required to consider Harris's time spent in custody in New South Wales when imposing the sentence in Queensland. The court found that the sentencing judge was not obligated to do so under the relevant legislation, which did not permit the reduction of a life sentence for murder. The court also noted that Harris's delay in applying for an extension of time could not be adequately explained and that the principle in The Queen v. Mill could not be applied in this case where the penalty was mandatory.

The court concluded that Harris would not have a prospect of success if leave to appeal were granted and that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, with all three judges concurring in the judgment.

The final order was that the application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders