R v Hasrouny - [2020] QCA 163

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hasrouny [2020] QCA 163

PARTIES:

R
v
HASROUNY, Peter James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 306 of 2019
DC No 313 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 17 October 2019 (McGinness DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2020

JUDGE:

Holmes CJ and Morrison JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where a jury found the appellant guilty of one count of entering a premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of armed robbery with personal violence and two counts of deprivation of liberty – where the case against the appellant was circumstantial – where the prosecution case relied entirely on DNA evidence – where the appellant’s DNA was found on items left at the scene of the robbery – where the appellant submits that his DNA was transferred to these items through the course of the conduct of his gardening business – where the appellant submits that the prosecution could not exclude a hypothesis consistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt – whether an alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence arose fairly upon the evidence

Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 455; [2020] HCA 15, cited
Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 779; [2014] HCA 28, distinguished
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: I agree with the reasons of Wilson J and with the order her Honour proposes.
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Wilson J and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.
WILSON J: On 17 October 2019 at the Southport District Court, a jury found the appellant guilty of:
(a)one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence;
(b)one count of armed robbery with personal violence; and
(c)two counts of deprivation of liberty.
These offences arose from an armed robbery of the Currumbin Creek Tavern.
For the most serious offences of entering premises with intent and armed robbery with personal violence, the appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years with an operational period of five years. Lesser concurrent sentences were imposed for the two deprivation of liberty offences.
The case against the appellant was circumstantial. To prove the identity of the offender, the prosecution’s case relied upon DNA evidence found on a number of objects left at the scene of the robbery. The prosecution had no case against the appellant without this DNA evidence.
The appellant appeals his conviction on the basis that the jury’s verdicts of guilty were unreasonable.…

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 Hasrouny

Details

AGLC: R v Hasrouny [2020] QCA 163
Case: [2020] QCA 163
Decision Date: 11 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hasrouny, the appellant faced trial for one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of armed robbery with personal violence, and two counts of deprivation of liberty. The case was heard and determined by the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the appellant's challenge against the verdicts rendered by the jury. The appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The court's decision centred on whether the jury's verdicts could be sustained given the nature of the evidence, particularly the DNA evidence that implicated the appellant.

The court was required to determine whether the DNA evidence, which was central to the prosecution's case, was sufficiently compelling to support the jury's findings of guilt. Additionally, the court had to assess the appellant's contention that his DNA was present at the crime scene due to his gardening business, and whether this alternative hypothesis was consistent with innocence. The key issue was whether this hypothesis was fairly raised by the evidence and whether it undermined the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court of appeal found that the evidence presented, particularly the DNA evidence, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. The court concluded that the appellant's alternative hypothesis, while possible, did not sufficiently undermine the prosecution's case to render the verdicts unreasonable or insupportable. The court held that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's hypothesis in favour of the prosecution's case based on the totality of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original verdicts were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were therefore affirmed, and the appellant remained liable for the offences as originally determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Hasrouny [2020] QCA 163
PARTIES:	R v HASROUNY, Peter James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 306 of 2019 DC No 313 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 17 October 2019 (McGinness DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	11 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2020
JUDGE:	Holmes CJ and Morrison JA and Wilson J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where a jury found the appellant guilty of one count of entering a premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of armed robbery with personal violence and two counts of deprivation of liberty – where the case against the appellant was circumstantial – where the prosecution case relied entirely on DNA evidence – where the appellant’s DNA was found on items left at the scene of the robbery – where the appellant submits that his DNA was transferred to these items through the course of the conduct of his gardening business – where the appellant submits that the prosecution could not exclude a hypothesis consistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt – whether an alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence arose fairly upon the evidence Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 455; [2020] HCA 15, cited Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 779; [2014] HCA 28, distinguished R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the appellant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent