Christopher Wayne Hudson v The Queen - [2013] HCASL 196

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HUDSON
v
THE QUEEN
[2013] HCASL 196
M77/2013

On 22 September 2008, having entered a plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria to: five years' imprisonment for being a prohibited person using an unregistered firearm; eight years' imprisonment on one count of intentionally causing serious injury; life imprisonment on one count of murder; and 12 years' imprisonment on each of two counts of attempted murder. The sentencing judge (Coghlan J) declared the total effective sentence to be life imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of 35 years' imprisonment. Coghlan J indicated that, but for the plea of guilty, he would not have fixed a non-parole period.
On 9 December 2010, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Ashley, Redlich and Harper JJA) refused the applicant leave to appeal his sentence. Their Honours rejected the applicant's contention that the non‑parole period was manifestly excessive. The applicant did not resist Coghlan J's characterisation of his offending as "falling into the highest category" of seriousness. The length of the non-parole period fell within the range of sentences reasonably open to Coghlan J, and it was not to the point that lesser sentences had been imposed in some comparable cases. Their Honours concluded that the non-parole period reflected the totality of the applicant's offending and the degree of his criminality. There had also been an appropriate discount for the plea of guilty.
The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to file an application for special leave to appeal to this Court. He continues to argue that the non-parole period imposed by Coghlan J was manifestly excessive. There is no reason to doubt the Court of Appeal's decision. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. The extension of time should not be granted.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
13 December 2013 P.A. Keane

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Christopher Wayne Hudson v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Christopher Wayne Hudson sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, challenging the non-parole period of 35 years imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hudson had been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including life imprisonment for murder and other serious offenses. The Supreme Court of Victoria had previously rejected Hudson's contention that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive and had also dismissed his application for leave to appeal the sentence. Hudson contended that the non-parole period was excessively long and sought to extend the time for filing a special leave application to the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hudson should be granted an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal. This involved assessing the merits of Hudson's argument that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive and whether there were any grounds for the High Court to entertain an appeal. The court had to determine whether the High Court would grant leave to appeal based on Hudson's contentions and whether the appeal had any prospects of success.

The High Court found that there were no compelling reasons to doubt the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had already dismissed Hudson's challenge to the non-parole period. The Court of Appeal had determined that the length of the non-parole period was appropriate given the severity of Hudson's offenses and the discount applied for his plea of guilty. The High Court held that the appeal would have no prospects of success, as the non-parole period was well within the range of sentences reasonably open to the sentencing judge and appropriately reflected the totality of Hudson's offending and degree of criminality. Consequently, the High Court declined to grant the extension of time for filing the special leave application.

The High Court dismissed Hudson's application for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal, thereby upholding the original sentence and the non-parole period imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders