R v Uittenbosch

[2013] QCA 96

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Uittenbosch [2013] QCA 96

PARTIES:

R
v
UITTENBOSCH, Shane Anthony
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 190 of 2012
SC No 154 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2013

JUDGE:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of three offences – where the appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence to prove intention – where there was evidence upon which it was open for a jury to find that the appellant had made a decision to attend the unit and had taken a knife with him – whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict the appellant of the three offences

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the learned trial judge admitted into evidence the statements of two persons who had passed away before the trial pursuant to s 93B of the Evidence Act – where the learned trial judge instructed the jury as to the reliability of those statements – whether the learned trial judge should have exercised a discretion under s 130 of the Evidence Act to exclude the statements

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant gave evidence at trial – where the appellant was subsequently cross-examined on his criminal history – where the full circumstances of the appellant’s past offences were not brought to the attention of the jury during cross-examination – whether the learned trial judge erred in exercising her discretion to allow cross-examination on the appellant’s criminal history

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B, s 130

Phillips v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 45; [1985] HCA 75, cited
R v SCA [2002] 2 Qd R 70; [2001] QCA 199, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Martin J and the order proposed by his Honour.

1. GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Martin J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

1. MARTIN J: On 2 July 2012 the appellant was convicted by a jury of –

(a)        Burglary in the night, with violence, while armed and in company;

(b)        Armed robbery, in company, with personal violence; and

(c)        Malicious act with intent.

1. He was acquitted of attempted murder and wounding.