R v Renata - [2000] QCA 328

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Renata [2000] QCA 328

PARTIES: R
v
RENATA, Philip David
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 119 of 2000
DC No 32 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON: 18 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 3 August 2000

JUDGES: Davies and Pincus JJA and Chesterman J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – DIRECTION TO JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – appellant convicted of one count of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of assault with intent to steal – the complainant identified the appellant as his principal assailant from a photo board – appellant claimed to have an alibi for the night in question – where the prosecution case consisted of strong identification evidence – whether the learned trial judge failed to isolate and identify those elements of the evidence said to undermine the reliability of the complainant's identification of the appellant – whether the learned trial judge erred in inadequately directing the jury

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 subsequent to the commission of the offences the appellant made threatening phone calls to the complainant – consideration of the sentencing principles applicable under the amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(3), s 9(4)

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, applied

R v Anderson CA No 434 of 1995, 1 February 1996, distinguished

R v Austin, Liddell and Townend CA No 133, No 134 and No 135 of 1997, 27 May 1997, distinguished

R v Brelsford CA No 301 of 1995, 14 September 1995, distinguished

R v Fatnowna [1999] QCA 492; CA No 259 of 1999, 25 November 1999, considered

R v Houghton and Genrich CA No 424 and No 425 of 1997, 26 February 1998, distinguished

R v McBride CA No 48 of 1995, 5 April 1995, considered

R v McCrea and Robbins CA No 272 and No 291 of 1994, 5 October 1994, distinguished

R v Palmer CA No 181 of 1998, 6 August 1998, considered

R v Stephens CA No 462 of 1997, 24 February 1998, distinguished

R v Suthern CA No 69 of 1998, 17 June 1998, considered

R v Wardrop CA No 141 of 1996, 15 July 1996, distinguished

COUNSEL: A W Moynihan for applicant/appellant
M J Byrne QC for respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

THE COURT: After a trial in the District Court the appellant…

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 Renata

Details

AGLC: R v Renata [2000] QCA 328
Case: [2000] QCA 328
Decision Date: 18 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in the matter of R v Renata was convicted of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and assault with intent to steal. The complainant identified the appellant as his principal assailant from a photo board. The appellant claimed to have an alibi for the night in question, however the prosecution case consisted of strong identification evidence. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the reliability of the complainant's identification evidence. The appellant also applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was considered manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the reliability of the identification evidence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to isolate and identify those elements of the evidence that undermined the reliability of the complainant's identification of the appellant. The appellant further contended that the trial judge's direction to the jury was inadequate. Additionally, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in directing the jury on the reliability of the identification evidence. The court found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the need to consider the reliability of the complainant's identification, and that there was no error in the direction given. The court also held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant sentencing principles, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 Renata [2000] QCA 328
PARTIES:	R v RENATA, Philip David (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 119 of 2000 DC No 32 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	18 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2000
JUDGES:	Davies and Pincus JJA and Chesterman J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – DIRECTION TO JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – appellant convicted of one count of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of assault with intent to steal – the complainant identified the appellant as his principal assailant from a photo board – appellant claimed to have an alibi for the night in question – where the prosecution case consisted of strong identification evidence – whether the learned trial judge failed to isolate and identify those elements of the evidence said to undermine the reliability of the complainant's identification of the appellant – whether the learned trial judge erred in inadequately directing the jury 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 subsequent to the commission of the offences the appellant made threatening phone calls to the complainant – consideration of the sentencing principles applicable under the amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(3), s 9(4) Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, applied R v Anderson CA No 434 of 1995, 1 February 1996, distinguished R v Austin, Liddell and Townend CA No 133, No 134 and No 135 of 1997, 27 May 1997, distinguished R v Brelsford CA No 301 of 1995, 14 September 1995, distinguished R v Fatnowna [1999] QCA 492; CA No 259 of 1999, 25 November 1999, considered R v Houghton and Genrich CA No 424 and No 425 of 1997, 26 February 1998, distinguished R v McBride CA No 48 of 1995, 5 April 1995, considered R v McCrea and Robbins CA No 272 and No 291 of 1994, 5 October 1994, distinguished R v Palmer CA No 181 of 1998, 6 August 1998, considered R v Stephens CA No 462 of 1997, 24 February 1998, distinguished R v Suthern CA No 69 of 1998, 17 June 1998, considered R v Wardrop CA No 141 of 1996, 15 July 1996, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for applicant/appellant M J Byrne QC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/respondent Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent