R v Hedland - [2003] QCA 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hedland [2003] QCA 210

PARTIES:

R
v
HEDLAND, Trevor Malcom
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 81 of 2003
CA No 305 of 1989

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 May 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA & White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – where applicant sought leave for extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where applicant had appealed previously – whether court has jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the merits

Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 8

R v Ali [2003] QCA 117; CA No 371 of 2002, 18 March 2003, followed
R v Long [2001] QCA 318; CA No 113 of 2001, 10 August 2001, followed
R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579, followed
R v Salles [2003] QCA 127; CA No 10 of 2003, 20 March 2003, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WHITE J: Mr Trevor Hedland who appears for himself is seeking leave for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against a sentence which was imposed upon him in the Supreme Court on circuit in Mount Isa on the 25th of September 1989.

He was convicted on his own guilty pleas in respect of eight counts. They were two counts of break, enter and steal; one count of stealing; one count of armed robbery; one count of burglary; one count of attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle; and another count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; and attempted murder.

The events which gave rise to the charges occurred on the 16th of January 1989. Mr Hedland was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which was 20 years for the attempted murder. The other terms were concurrent.

He was then aged 29 years and had an extensive criminal history. His co‑accused who was aged 18 years at the time was not charged with attempted murder, but was charged by himself with a separate count of doing grievous bodily harm for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years.

He appealed his sentence of 20 years on the ground that it was manifestly excessive, and also the lack of parity with his co‑offender.

The Court of Criminal Appeal heard the appeal on the 21st and 22nd of November 1989, and delivered its reasons for dismissing the appeal on 15 December…

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 Hedland

Details

AGLC: R v Hedland [2003] QCA 210
Case: [2003] QCA 210
Decision Date: 23 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hedland involved an appeal against a sentence. The applicant, who had been previously convicted, sought leave to extend the time within which to appeal against the sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the merits of the case. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the authority to hear a second appeal from the same applicant concerning the same conviction and sentence, after an initial appeal had already been heard.

The court considered the principles of finality and the role of appellate courts in reviewing criminal sentences. It was noted that appellate courts generally do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the merits unless there is a significant change in the law or a miscarriage of justice. The court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal on the merits, given that the applicant had already been afforded the opportunity to appeal once. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to appeal was refused. The court's decision emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the limited scope of appellate review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Hedland [2003] QCA 210
PARTIES:	R v HEDLAND, Trevor Malcom (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 81 of 2003 CA No 305 of 1989
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mt Isa
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	23 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 May 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA & White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – where applicant sought leave for extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where applicant had appealed previously – whether court has jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the merits Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 8 R v Ali [2003] QCA 117; CA No 371 of 2002, 18 March 2003, followed R v Long [2001] QCA 318; CA No 113 of 2001, 10 August 2001, followed R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579, followed R v Salles [2003] QCA 127; CA No 10 of 2003, 20 March 2003, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent