R v Sanderson - [2003] QCA 338

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sanderson [2003] QCA 338

PARTIES:

R
v
SANDERSON, Brian
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 40 of 2003
SC No 144 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
2. Appeal against conviction 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 manslaughter – where basis of appeal regarded the unreliability of the principal witness – where evidence and statements of principal witness contained some inconsistencies – where learned trial judge gave very careful directions as to how the jury should approach the evidence of the principal witness – where directions not complained about – whether it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where learned trial judge considered a 12 year term of imprisonment to be appropriate due to seriousness of the offence – where learned trial judge considered that s 161(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) could not apply to the 660 days already served by the appellant as he was held for that time on a murder charge – where learned trial judge reduced head sentence to a term of 10 years due to perceived inability to apply s 161(1) – where appellate authorities construe s 161(1) as applicable to such cases – whether sentencing discretion miscarried

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 300, s 576(1), s 668E
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161(1)

M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited
R v Baggot [2000] QCA 153; CA No 1 of 2000, 3 May 2000, followed
R v Barlow (1996-1997) 188 CLR 1, followed
R v Cowburn [1993] QCA 273; CA No 135 of 1993, 4 August 1993, followed
R v Miguel [1994] QCA 512; CA No 351 of 1994, 25 October 1994, followed
R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10; CA No 220 of 2001, 4 February 2002, discussed
Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Officer (Qld) (1988-1989) 167 CLR 45, applied

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Jerrard JA that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed. The prosecution case depended essentially on the evidence of Ms Harris, who had been charged…

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 Sanderson

Details

AGLC: R v Sanderson [2003] QCA 338
Case: [2003] QCA 338
Decision Date: 8 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Sanderson was heard by the court of appeal, with the appellant contesting his conviction for manslaughter. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the reliability of the principal witness were inadequate, resulting in an unreasonable or insupportable verdict. The case hinged on whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter, given the inconsistencies in the principal witness's evidence.

The court addressed whether the trial judge's directions were sufficient and whether the jury's verdict was reasonable, considering the evidence presented. The trial judge had provided careful instructions on how to approach the principal witness's evidence, which the court found to be adequate. The court held that the jury could reasonably have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt based on the evidence and the trial judge's directions. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

In relation to the sentence, the appellant argued that the trial judge misapplied section 161(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), which should have applied to the 660 days he had already served. The trial judge had reduced the sentence to 10 years due to this perceived misapplication. However, the appellate authorities indicated that section 161(1) was applicable in such cases. The court found that the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's circumstances and the seriousness of the offence resulted in an appropriate sentence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

2. 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 Sanderson [2003] QCA 338
PARTIES:	R v SANDERSON, Brian (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 40 of 2003 SC No 144 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused 2. Appeal against conviction 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 manslaughter – where basis of appeal regarded the unreliability of the principal witness – where evidence and statements of principal witness contained some inconsistencies – where learned trial judge gave very careful directions as to how the jury should approach the evidence of the principal witness – where directions not complained about – whether it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where learned trial judge considered a 12 year term of imprisonment to be appropriate due to seriousness of the offence – where learned trial judge considered that s 161(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) could not apply to the 660 days already served by the appellant as he was held for that time on a murder charge – where learned trial judge reduced head sentence to a term of 10 years due to perceived inability to apply s 161(1) – where appellate authorities construe s 161(1) as applicable to such cases – whether sentencing discretion miscarried Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 300, s 576(1), s 668E Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161(1) M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited R v Baggot [2000] QCA 153; CA No 1 of 2000, 3 May 2000, followed R v Barlow (1996-1997) 188 CLR 1, followed R v Cowburn [1993] QCA 273; CA No 135 of 1993, 4 August 1993, followed R v Miguel [1994] QCA 512; CA No 351 of 1994, 25 October 1994, followed R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10; CA No 220 of 2001, 4 February 2002, discussed Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Officer (Qld) (1988-1989) 167 CLR 45, applied
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent