R v Holden

[2006] QCA 416

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Holden [2006] QCA 416

PARTIES:

R
v
HOLDEN, Newman Patrick
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 208 of 2006
DC No 1855 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence 

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of seven counts of serious assault committed against two police officers – where assaults occurred in context of resisting arrest and some involved spitting of blood  – whether discrepancies in evidence of the two police officers was such as to render verdict unsafe or to cause miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of seven counts of serious assault committed against two police officers – whether 12 months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, was manifestly excessive

R v Laskus [1996] QCA 120, considered
R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322; CA No 99 of 2001, 7 August 2001, cited
Sweet v Armstrong [1995] QCA 406, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT:  Justice Holmes will deliver her reasons first.

HOLMES JA:  The appellant appeared for himself on his appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence.  He was convicted after a trial, at which he did not give evidence, of seven counts of serious assault.  He was acquitted on an eighth count.  The ground of appeal was that the verdicts were unsafe and there was a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown case turned on the evidence of two police officers, Constable Steginga and Sergeant Coyne, who arrested the appellant on suspicion of possessing cannabis.  They allege that the appellant committed a series of assaults on them after his arrest.  Those assaults began, they said, with his resisting Constable Steginga when the latter attempted to handcuff him.  The appellant made no submissions about his conviction on this count.

The second assault, on the account of Coyne and Steginga, occurred when the appellant wiped blood on Sergeant Coyne's arm, informing her that he had hepatitis C.  The third assault was a spitting at Steginga when the two officers were trying to get the appellant into the police car.  Count 4 was a…