Court of Appeal

R v Hicks [2017] QCA 014 (16/12) Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Henry J 17 February 2017

Full-text: QCA17-014.pdf


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 one count of fraud and one count of attempt to murder – where the defence of accident under s 23(1)(b) Criminal Code (Qld) was raised on the evidence – where the appellant contends the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – whether intention to kill was the only rational inference open to the jury on the whole of the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for fraud and 12 years’ imprisonment for attempt to murder to be served concurrently – where the applicant had no previous criminal history for violence – where there were no permanent physical injuries to the complainant – where the applicant contends that the sentence imposed for attempt to murder is unreasonable or plainly unjust – whether the sentence was within the range suggested by sentences for comparable offending – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive