R v Palmer & Hite - [2002] QCA 346

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346

PARTIES:

R
v
PALMER, Stuart William
HITE, Leonard John
(appellants/applicants)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 21 of 2002
CA No 122 of 2002
CA No 26 of 2002
CA No 115 of 2002
SC No 572 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 June 2002

JUDGES:

Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA.
Joint reasons for judgment by Davies and Williams JJA; separate reasons of Jerrard JA dissenting in part.

ORDERS:

1. CA No. 21 of 2002: Dismiss appeal against convictions.

2. CA No. 122 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

3. CA No. 26 of 2002: Allow appeal, quash conviction for accessory after the fact to attempted murder and enter verdict of acquittal.

4. CA No. 115 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence for dangerous driving.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant Palmer complains of misdirection by learned trial judge with respect to onus of proof – where learned trial judge repeatedly directed the jury correctly as to onus of proof – where directions need to be considered in context of surrounding directions – whether directions mislead the jury as to burden or onus of proof

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES – ENTERING AS TRESPASSER OR WITH INTENT AND BEING OR BEING FOUND WITH INTENT – where uncontradicted evidence that the appellant Palmer was found in a motor vehicle belonging to another – where appellant took fuses from the vehicle – where owner of motor vehicle gave no relevant permission – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – POSSESSION – OTHER MATTERS – where police found amphetamine on the appellant Palmer’s person – where appellant complained that the drug was planted by police – whether it was open to the jury to accept the police evidence that they found the appellant in possession of the amphetamine – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – ATTEMPT – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER CASES – ATTEMPTED MURDER – whether jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Palmer had intention to kill as distinct from an intention to injure or scare off – where no evidence existed to suggest the appellant had any intention other than to kill – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – ATTEMPT – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER CASES – ATTEMPTED MURDER – where trial judge did not consider the firing of only one shot and the absence of any serious injury to the victim as mitigating factors when sentencing the applicant…

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 Palmer & Hite

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346
Case: [2002] QCA 346
Decision Date: 6 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Palmer and Hite, the appellants, Palmer and Hite, sought to appeal their convictions and sentences. Palmer was convicted of burglary, drug possession, and attempted murder, while Hite was convicted of dangerous driving and being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the validity of the convictions and sentences, as well as whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The legal issues at hand encompassed several areas of criminal law, including the burden of proof, the sufficiency of evidence for various charges, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The appellants argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the onus of proof, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Additionally, they contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

Upon examining the trial judge's summing up as a whole, the Court of Appeal found that the directions given to the jury were not misleading and that the jury had been correctly informed of the onus of proof. The evidence presented at trial was deemed sufficient to support the convictions for burglary, drug possession, attempted murder, dangerous driving, and being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder. However, the Court of Appeal did find that the evidence did not support the conviction for being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder, as there was no evidence to suggest that Hite knew that Palmer was armed with a gun. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the convictions, except for Hite's conviction for being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder, which was quashed and replaced with a verdict of acquittal.

The Court of Appeal also considered the sentences imposed on the appellants. While it was found that the sentences for dangerous driving and attempted murder were not manifestly excessive, the Court of Appeal did find that the sentence for being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder was excessive. However, as this conviction was quashed, no new sentence was imposed. The appeals against the sentences for attempted murder and dangerous driving were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. CA No. 21 of 2002: Dismiss appeal against convictions.

2. CA No. 122 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

3. CA No. 26 of 2002: Allow appeal, quash conviction for accessory after the fact to attempted murder and enter verdict of acquittal.

4. CA No. 115 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence for dangerous driving.

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 Palmer & Hite [2002] QCA 346
PARTIES:	R v PALMER, Stuart William HITE, Leonard John (appellants/applicants)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 21 of 2002 CA No 122 of 2002 CA No 26 of 2002 CA No 115 of 2002 SC No 572 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 June 2002
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA. Joint reasons for judgment by Davies and Williams JJA; separate reasons of Jerrard JA dissenting in part.
ORDERS:	1. CA No. 21 of 2002: Dismiss appeal against convictions. 2. CA No. 122 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence. 3. CA No. 26 of 2002: Allow appeal, quash conviction for accessory after the fact to attempted murder and enter verdict of acquittal. 4. CA No. 115 of 2002: Refuse leave to appeal against sentence for dangerous driving.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant Palmer complains of misdirection by learned trial judge with respect to onus of proof – where learned trial judge repeatedly directed the jury correctly as to onus of proof – where directions need to be considered in context of surrounding directions – whether directions mislead the jury as to burden or onus of proof CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES – ENTERING AS TRESPASSER OR WITH INTENT AND BEING OR BEING FOUND WITH INTENT – where uncontradicted evidence that the appellant Palmer was found in a motor vehicle belonging to another – where appellant took fuses from the vehicle – where owner of motor vehicle gave no relevant permission – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – POSSESSION – OTHER MATTERS – where police found amphetamine on the appellant Palmer’s person – where appellant complained that the drug was planted by police – whether it was open to the jury to accept the police evidence that they found the appellant in possession of the amphetamine – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – ATTEMPT – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER CASES – ATTEMPTED MURDER – whether jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Palmer had intention to kill as distinct from an intention to injure or scare off – where no evidence existed to suggest the appellant had any intention other than to kill – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – ATTEMPT – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER CASES – ATTEMPTED MURDER – where trial judge did not consider the firing of only one shot and the absence of any serious injury to the victim as mitigating factors when sentencing the applicant…