The Queen v Mark John Hadland - [2000] QCA 343

[2000] QCA 343

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 174 of 2000

THE QUEEN

MARK JOHN HADLAND Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/08/2000

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: On 4 October 1999 Mark Hadland was convicted after a trial before a jury in the District Court at Bundaberg of a single count of assault occasioning bodily harm. On the same day he was sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment with a declaration that it was a serious violent offence. Because he was on parole at the time of the offence he was obliged to serve the balance of his existing sentence of three years, on which the sentence imposed on 4 October 1999 was made cumulative.

On 3 July 2000 he filed a notice of appeal directed to conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal against conviction has now been abandoned and we have dismissed it. There are several obstacles to the appeal against sentence. In the first place the application is well out of time and an extension is needed to enable it to be pursued here. In the second place an application for leave to appeal against the same sentence has already been lodged and has been determined by a Court of Appeal comprising the Chief Justice, the President and Justice Dutney on 16 May 2000 in Rockhampton.

We were referred in the written outlines to conflicting opinions in this Court as to whether or not a second appeal or application for leave to appeal against sentence is maintainable. For present purposes I am prepared to assume (but no more) that it is. See R v. Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd.R 601. But such an appeal or application is one that would only be entertained in cases of plain injustice.
The present application is very far from being that. The matters raised by the applicant, who appeared in person before us, go essentially to the following matters. First, there is a challenge to the complainant's credibility. Matters are raised such as her alleged tendency to use drugs, drink vodka and consume amphetamines. Factors of this kind were put in the course of the trial, both to the complainant herself, and also to some extent in evidence by the appellant. The jury plainly rejected them.

The evidence of Mr Errol Rouse is suggested to be competent to prove these matters or to advance them again. Mr Rouse was apparently a witness who was going to be called at the trial, but in the end he was not. However one looks at the matter it is material that goes only to the credibility of the complainant and is therefore collateral to the issue with which we are now concerned.

There is also a reference to a Mr Lee Hillier. He evidently gave evidence for the defence at the trial. He is a nephew, as I understand it, of the applicant and has a criminal record himself. His evidence can at best go…

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 The Queen v Mark John Hadland

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Mark John Hadland [2000] QCA 343
Case: [2000] QCA 343
Decision Date: 21/08/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mark John Hadland, the applicant, filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence for assault occasioning bodily harm, which was imposed by the District Court at Bundaberg. The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Thomas JA, and Atkinson JA, was tasked with determining the appeal against the sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the Court should grant leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, considering the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was out of time and that a similar application had already been determined by another Court of Appeal. The Court also highlighted that a second appeal against the same sentence would only be entertained in cases of plain injustice. The applicant's arguments focused on the credibility of the complainant, character references, and the applicant's work as an undercover intelligence officer. However, the Court found that these matters were collateral to the issue of the sentence and had already been considered during the sentencing hearing. The Court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice or plain injustice that would warrant the grant of leave to appeal against the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence and the application to extend time for the appeal. The Court's reasoning was that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any injustice or miscarriage of justice that would activate the Court's jurisdiction to consider a second application for leave to appeal against sentence. Consequently, the Court denied the application to extend time for the appeal. The final order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal against sentence and the application to extend time within which to appeal against sentence were both dismissed.

Orders