R v Morris

Case [2004] QCA 408

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morris [2004] QCA 408

PARTIES:

R
v
MORRIS, William Montague
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 89 of 2004
DC No 239 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and White J
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

3.   A warrant is to issue for the arrest of the appellant but it is to remain in the registry for seven days

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS – PARTICULAR CASES – CRIMINAL LAWS – where appellant was convicted of four counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle under Queensland Criminal Code – where appellant had flown his aircraft at low altitude over houses – where Commonwealth legislation exists to regulate aviation in Australia – whether Commonwealth legislation purports to cover the field – whether Queensland legislation inconsistent with that of Commonwealth – whether Queensland legislation invalid

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FRESH EVIDENCE – AVAILABILITY AT TRIAL; MATERIALITY AND COGENCY – PARTICULAR CASES – MATERIALITY AND COGENCY – OTHER CASES – where appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence in the form of telephone conversations he had with his pastor at the times he was alleged to be flying the aircraft dangerously – where this evidence could have been utilised at trial – whether any significant possibility that a jury acting reasonably would have acquitted appellant if the fresh evidence had been before it at trial

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’s student gave evidence that he was flying the aircraft at the relevant times – where some discrepancy between appellant’s and student’s evidence as to who controlled the aircraft at particular times – where witnesses on the ground estimated the height at which the aircraft flew and identified the appellant as the pilot – whether there was enough evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where appellant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after two months with an operational period of two years – where no relevant criminal history – where appellant deliberately flew dangerously over three days on four occasions – whether wholly suspended sentence should have been imposed – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), s 20A
Civil…

Continue reading R v Morris

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Morris [2004] QCA 408
Case
[2004] QCA 408
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Morris, was convicted in the District Court of Queensland on four counts of dangerous operation of a vehicle under the Criminal Code. He flew his aircraft at low altitude over houses, and was convicted based on evidence from witnesses on the ground and his student, who was also in the aircraft. The appeal against his conviction focused on several legal issues. One issue was whether the Queensland legislation under which he was convicted was inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation regulating aviation in Australia, and therefore invalid. Another issue was the admissibility of fresh evidence that could have been presented at trial, specifically telephone conversations between Morris and his pastor. The third issue was whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsafe given the evidence presented.

The court found that the Commonwealth legislation did not cover the field of aviation regulation in a manner that would render the Queensland legislation inconsistent and therefore invalid. The court further held that the fresh evidence, while available at trial, was not so material or cogent that a reasonable jury would have acquitted Morris if it had been presented. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Morris’s guilt, and therefore the verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused. The court found that a wholly suspended sentence was not appropriate, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. A warrant is to issue for the arrest of Morris, but it is to remain in the registry for seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

3. A warrant is to issue for the arrest of the appellant but it is to remain in the registry for seven days

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.