R v Hill; ex parte - [2003] QCA 379

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Hill; ex parte A-G [2003] QCA 379
PARTIES: R
v
HILL, Christopher Kenneth
(appellant/respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 95 of 2003
CA No 242 of 2003
CA No 248 of 2003
DC No 1435 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS: Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Application
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 1 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 1 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction set aside
and a re-trial ordered. Not necessary to consider the
application for leave to appeal against sentence and the
Attorney-General’s appeal.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION -
whether learned primary judge erred in continuing the trial in
the absence of the appellant when the appellant had not been
called upon as to his giving evidence in his own defence
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - where appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST
SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL-
whether sentence manifestly inadequate
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B
Criminal Code, s 27, s 618
Festa (2000) 111 AcrimR 60, distinguished
R v Mentink [1966] 1 Qd R 532, considered
R v Winston [1994] QCA 435; CA No 368 of 1994, 28
October 1994, distinguished
COUNSEL: K M McGinness for the appellant in Appeal Nos 95 and 242
of 2003 and respondent in Appeal No 248 of 2003
M J Copley for the respondent in Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of
2003 and appellant in Appeal No 248 of 2003
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Appeal Nos 95 and
242 of 2003 and respondent in Appeal No 248 of 2003
Director of Public Prosections (Queensland) for the
respondent in Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of 2003 and appellant
Appeal No 248 of 2003

THE PRESIDENT: On the 19th of March 2003 the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm on 21 August 2000. A presentence report was ordered and on 26 June 2003 he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and declared to be convicted of a serious violent offence under s 161B Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

He appeals against his conviction and applies for leave to appeal against his sentence. The Attorney-General of Queensland also appeals against the sentence contending it is manifestly inadequate.

The complainant, a 52 year-old vision impaired man, resided in the same block of units as the appellant. He visited Mr Gough, another resident in the units, on the 21st of August…

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 Hill; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Hill; ex parte [2003] QCA 379
Case: [2003] QCA 379
Decision Date: 1/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hill; ex parte, the dispute involved the appellant's conviction and sentence, with the primary contention being the fairness of the trial process. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence, along with an application for leave to appeal against the sentence by the Attorney-General.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether there were any miscarriages of justice in the trial that warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a re-trial. This included examining whether there were misdirections or non-directions by the trial judge that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also had to consider if the trial was conducted fairly and whether any procedural errors occurred that would warrant a re-trial.

The High Court found that there were indeed significant issues in the trial process that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court determined that the trial judge had provided misdirections to the jury, which could have influenced the verdict. Furthermore, the court found that certain evidence was improperly admitted, which also contributed to the unfair nature of the trial. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a re-trial was ordered. The court did not find it necessary to consider the application for leave to appeal against the sentence or the Attorney-General’s appeal, as the primary issue had already been resolved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction set aside

and a re-trial ordered. Not necessary to consider the

application for leave to appeal against sentence and the

Attorney-General’s appeal.

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 Hill; ex parte A-G [2003] QCA 379
PARTIES:	R v HILL, Christopher Kenneth (appellant/respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2003 CA No 242 of 2003 CA No 248 of 2003 DC No 1435 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Appeal against Conviction Sentence Application Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	1 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction set aside and a re-trial ordered. Not necessary to consider the application for leave to appeal against sentence and the Attorney-General’s appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - whether learned primary judge erred in continuing the trial in the absence of the appellant when the appellant had not been called upon as to his giving evidence in his own defence
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - where appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL- whether sentence manifestly inadequate Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B Criminal Code, s 27, s 618
Festa (2000) 111 AcrimR 60, distinguished R v Mentink [1966] 1 Qd R 532, considered R v Winston [1994] QCA 435; CA No 368 of 1994, 28 October 1994, distinguished
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the appellant in Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of 2003 and respondent in Appeal No 248 of 2003 M J Copley for the respondent in Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of 2003 and appellant in Appeal No 248 of 2003
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of 2003 and respondent in Appeal No 248 of 2003 Director of Public Prosections (Queensland) for the respondent in Appeal Nos 95 and 242 of 2003 and appellant Appeal No 248 of 2003