Court of Appeal

R v Anderson [2014] QCA 134 (13/0302) Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Boddice J 6 June 2014

Full-text: QCA14-134.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle at a marked police car that was in pursuit – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – where the appellant was found not guilty of, inter alia, one count of attempted murder – whether a verdict of guilty on malicious act with intent is inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty of attempted murder

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of, inter alia, one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant pointed, aimed and fired a long barrelled firearm from the passenger window of a vehicle and hit the bonnet of an unmarked police car that was in pursuit at speed – whether the jury could be satisfied the appellant’s actions were willed – whether the verdict of guilty for a malicious act with intent was unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of serious assault, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of malicious act with intent – where the appellant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of 10 years imprisonment – where the appellant was declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted of attempted murder in 2001 and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and declared to be a serious violent offender – where the appellant had been convicted for robbery with actual violence whilst armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of 10 years imprisonment – where the appellant was declared to be a serious violent offender – where the sentencing judge did not place particular emphasis on the appellant’s personal circumstances – where the sentencing judge referred to a decision involving a more dangerous series of acts – whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to factors personal to the appellant’s circumstances and whether this resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence