R v Hennig

Case [2010] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hennig [2010] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
HENNIG, Tamlan John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 221 of 2009
DC No 515 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA, and White JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – appellant pleaded not guilty to eight drug offences, including trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, trafficking the dangerous drugs 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) and cannabis sativa, possessing scales used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in dangerous drugs and knowingly possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking in dangerous drugs – appellant's mobile phone and computer produced no evidence of business of trafficking – witnesses, including the appellant's brother and father gave innocent explanations for the appellant's possession of money – appellants living expenses considerable but no regular apparent source of income – appellant in possession of various illegal drugs, scales and paperwork – surveillance footage showed a number of visitors to appellant's apartment for short periods of time – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the money found in appellant's safe was obtained from trafficking in dangerous drugs – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant engaged in business of trafficking dangerous drugs – whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – during trial prosecutor put to appellant that his version of events was false – prosecutor submitted that appellant's inability to explain possession of drugs was indication of inability to cover up lies – neither counsel sought direction from judge about lies told by appellant
– defence did not seek jury direction on lies – whether judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the use to be made of lies – whether non-direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – police surveillance footage of number of people visiting appellant's unit over eight days tendered as evidence – footage was over 15 hours long – judge directed that footage be fast-forwarded during periods of no activity and prosecution to produce a schedule for each DVD showing times of arrival and departures – schedule not evidence itself – jury had access to all footage – whether judge erred in not playing the surveillance footage in full

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND…

Continue reading R v Hennig

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hennig [2010] QCA 244
Case
[2010] QCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hennig saw the appellant appealing against his conviction and sentence for multiple drug-related offences, including trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of various substances and paraphernalia. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant contested the jury's conclusion that he was involved in drug trafficking, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict beyond reasonable doubt. He also challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict, the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury on the use of the appellant's lies, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The appellant's argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence centred on the absence of direct evidence linking him to drug trafficking and the provision of innocent explanations for his possession of money. The appellant further contended that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the significance of his lies constituted a non-direction that led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive due to his young age, short criminal history, and personal circumstances.

The court found that the jury was open to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant engaged in drug trafficking based on the totality of the evidence, including the possession of drugs, scales, and money, and the pattern of visitors to his apartment. The court held that the absence of direct evidence did not preclude the jury from finding the appellant guilty if the overall circumstances supported the conclusion. Regarding the non-direction on the appellant's lies, the court determined that the failure to direct the jury on the use of lies did not result in a miscarriage of justice as both counsel had not sought such a direction. The court also rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, noting the severity of the appellant's offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. 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.