© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2002] QCA 64
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2002-03-15
McMurdo P, Davies JA, Byrne JSeparate reasons for, judgment of each member of the Court, Davies JA and Byrne J concurring as to the
Original judgment source is linked above.
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND MATTERS - OTHER OFFENCES
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY - INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS- PARTICULAR CASES - where appellant and his wife jointly charged with two counts of stalking against neighbour husband and wife - where appellant convicted on count 1 but acquitted on count 2 - where appellant's wife found not guilty on both counts - whether verdict of guilty on count 1 is unsafe and unsatisfactory because it is inconsistent with the acquittal of appellant's wife and acquittal on count 2 - whether open to jury to find appellant's conduct satisfied s 359B(d)(i) and (ii) Criminal Code in respect of wife complainant but not in respect of husband complainant
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - DIRECTION TO JURY - where no direction by trial judge that Crown bore the onus of proving that the circumstances of the alleged unlawful stalking were unreasonable - whether s 359B Criminal Code imports a notion of reasonableness in its elements
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - whether judge's summing up lacked balance because the explanation of the prosecution case was more detailed than that of the defence
JURY - THE JURY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - GENERAL MATTERS - where over 150 particularised alleged acts of stalking - where verdict does not indicate which acts were proven beyond reasonable doubt - where no application by defence counsel for special verdict - whether trial judge should have requested a special verdict for purpose of sentencing
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where sentence of 3 years imprisonment and restraining order of 15 years imposed - where no plea of guilty and no display of remorse - where one prior conviction and positive references - where head sentence increased from 3 to 5 years - where sentence not manifestly excessive
Criminal Code (Qld), s 359A, s 359B, s 359E, s 359F
R v Allie [1998] QCA 75; [1999] 1 QdR 618, considered
R v Hallett [1997] QCA 418, CA No 301 of 1997, 21 November 1997, considered
R v Haselich [1967] QdR 183, considered
R v Holznagel [1998] QCA 26, CA No 426 of 1997, 6 February 1998, considered
R v P [1999] QCA 411; [2000] 2 QdR 401, considered R v Rosenlund [1997] QCA 311, CA No 271 of 1997, 26 August 1997, considered
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
R
Ali [2002] QCA 64
(1996) 190 CLR 348