R v Pollock - [2003] QCA 119

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pollock [2003] QCA 119

PARTIES:

R
v
POLLOCK, Daryl

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 342 of 2002

DC No 340 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM – OTHER OFFENCES INVOLVING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - where appellant is convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment and disqualified from holding a driver's licence for life – whether trial judge acted unfairly

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and with the order she proposes.

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and with the order she proposes.

PHILIPPIDES J: The appellant appeals against his conviction after trial of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm to David Gilbert on 26 July 2000. The grounds of appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal are unfairness on the part of the trial judge “because all the facts were hidden by the court as [the appellant] could not reveal [he was] in prison or was extradited, also the whereabouts of a so-called truck and the place a person said he was and where he was”.

Circumstances of the offence

On 26 July 2000 both the complainant and the appellant were working as part of a kerb and channelling construction gang at the Old Orchard Estate at Palmwoods, near Yandina. The appellant had the job of driving an eight tonne company truck and the complainant was a concreter. Whilst he was driving this truck, the appellant ran over the complainant’s legs, resulting in the complainant suffering serious injury. The prosecution case was that the appellant operated the vehicle dangerously, in that he either deliberately ran over the complainant, or that he carelessly ran over the complainant.

It was common ground that the complainant and the appellant had not been getting on very well for a couple of days before the incident. The complainant said that prior to the incident he was finishing a corner area of the kerbing of a traffic island in Old Orchard Drive, which needed to be moulded by hand. He said that the appellant was told by Steven Swain, another member of the construction team, to get the crane-truck which was parked in a side street off Old Orchard Drive, in order…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Pollock and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] QCA 119
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pollock involved the appellant who was convicted for dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment and disqualified from holding a driver's licence for life. The court was required to determine if the trial judge acted unfairly during the proceedings. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the conviction, assessing the fairness of the trial judge’s conduct and the validity of the conviction.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge provided a fair trial to the appellant and whether the conviction was based on sufficient evidence. The court examined the conduct of the trial judge, the procedures followed, and the evidence presented to ensure that the appellant's rights were upheld. The appellant argued that the trial judge's conduct during the trial was prejudicial and that it compromised the fairness of the proceedings.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not act unfairly in any manner that would have compromised the fairness of the trial. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the conviction, and the court found that the trial judge followed proper legal procedures. The reasoning of the court was based on a detailed examination of the trial transcripts and the evidence provided. The court was satisfied that the appellant received a fair trial and that the conviction was rightly made.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The conviction of the appellant for the dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm was upheld, and the sentence and disqualification from holding a driver's licence were maintained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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 Pollock [2003] QCA 119
PARTIES:	R v POLLOCK, Daryl (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 342 of 2002 DC No 340 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM – OTHER OFFENCES INVOLVING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - where appellant is convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment and disqualified from holding a driver's licence for life – whether trial judge acted unfairly
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent