R v Hoh - [2000] VSCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 96 of 1999

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER HOH

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., TADGELL and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 August 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 155

---

Criminal Law: Appeal against conviction – Grounds pleaded alleged wrongful admission of evidence touching the prior conduct of the applicant; of evidence of a conversation occurring in the absence of the applicant shortly after the alleged commission of an offence charged; of evidence of a conversation between the alleged victim and a D24 operator, in part, during the commission of an offence charged: Ratten v. The Queen [1972] A.C. 378; R. v. Andrews [1987] 1 A.C. 281 applied. Further ground alleging unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict (applicant did not give evidence at trial) M. v. The Queen (1994) 181 C.L.R. 487 and Weissensteiner v. The Queen (1993) 178 C.L.R. 217 should be applied. Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

The applicant, who is aged 46, was presented at the County Court at Melbourne on 16 March 1999 on a count of damaging property (count 1) and on a count of arson (count 2). These offences which were allegedly committed on 21 and 22 March 1998 at Clayton and Vermont South respectively, carried maximum penalties of ten years’ and 15 years’ imprisonment. The applicant pleaded not guilty but was convicted on both counts by the jury on 26 March. The applicant had no prior convictions and, after hearing a plea for leniency, the learned judge on 29 April 1999 sentenced him to be imprisoned for 15 months on count 1 and 30 months on count 2 making for a total effective sentence of 30 months. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of 18 months.

On 8 May, the applicant lodged notice of application for leave to appeal against his convictions pleading certain grounds which he had drafted himself. This application was listed on 7 October but was not reached. The applicant was paroled on 17 September and the matter again listed on 15 February 2000. The applicant appeared determined to represent himself but accepted an offer by the Court to obtain the assistance of counsel who would act on a pro bono basis. This Court is greatly indebted to Mr Tehan who agreed so to do. On 23 June last, the learned Registrar allowed substitution of the following grounds:

“1A.The learned trial judge erred in admitting into evidence of incidents whereby the applicant visited his former wife, Patricia Lau, placed objects in her vehicle and continued to make attempts to reconcile with her.
1.The learned trial judge erred in directing the jury upon the use they could make of the evidence of incidents whereby the applicant visited his former wife, Patricia Lau, placed objects in her vehicle and continued to make attempts…

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 Hoh

Details

AGLC: R v Hoh [2000] VSCA 155
Case: [2000] VSCA 155
Decision Date: 30 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under consideration in the High Court was an appeal by the accused against a conviction in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, who was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence. This evidence related to the appellant's prior conduct, a conversation that occurred in his absence shortly after the alleged offences, and a conversation between the alleged victim and a D24 operator, partially during the commission of the charged offences. The appellant contended that this evidence was inadmissible under the rules governing propensity evidence, hearsay, and the exclusion of evidence obtained in circumstances rendering its admission unjust.

The legal issues that the Court had to address were whether the trial judge had misapplied the principles of evidence law, particularly concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence, hearsay, and evidence obtained under unfair circumstances. The appellant also challenged the safety and satisfaction of the verdict, given that he did not testify at the trial. The Court had to determine if the trial judge's admission of the contested evidence was a material factor in the jury's verdict, and whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory in light of the unchallenged evidence.

In evaluating the appeal, the Court meticulously reviewed the principles set out in Ratten v. The Queen and R. v. Andrews, which guide the admissibility of propensity evidence and evidence of conversations occurring in the absence of the accused. The Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied these principles and that the contested evidence was properly admitted. The Court also examined the cases of M. v. The Queen and Weissensteiner v. The Queen to assess the safety and satisfaction of the verdict. The Court concluded that the jury had sufficient unchallenged evidence to convict the appellant and that the contested evidence, while perhaps prejudicial, did not render the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court found that the trial judge's admission of evidence did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it undermined the safety and satisfaction of the verdict. The Court's decision confirmed the conviction and sentence, leaving the appellant without relief from the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Orders