Drew Hancock v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 239

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0030

DREW HANCOCK	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, FERGUSON and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 239
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Caycee Johnson and Drew Hancock (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Coish J, 1 February 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Applicant pleaded guilty to 29 charges which mostly involved dishonesty offences – Applicant was 21 years old at the time of offending and heavy ice user – Applicant had good record – Judge considered principles related to young offenders tempered by ‘serious nature and grand scale’ of offending – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Judge considered all relevant factors – Azzopardi v R (2011) 35 VR 43 – Sentencing Act 1991

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Johns with Mr L Carter	Adrian Paull Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr MD Phillips	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

THE COURT:

On 25 January 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty to 29 charges, most of which involved dishonesty offences. He also pleaded guilty to a number of summary offences, most of which related to his commission of indictable offences whilst on bail. He was sentenced[1] on 1 February 2017 to a total effective sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months being set. The details of the sentence on the individual charges are set out in the annexure to these reasons.
[1]Director of Public Prosecutions v Caycee Johnson and Drew Hancock (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Coish J, 1 February 2017) (‘Sentence Reasons’).

The applicant was refused leave to appeal[2] but renewed the application for leave pursuant to s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. His principal ground of appeal is that the individual sentences, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
[2]Drew Hancock v The Queen (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Ashley JA, 26 April 2017) (‘Appeal Reasons’)

For the reasons which follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

The commission of the offences[3]

[3]The below is drawn from Exhibit 1 on the plea, Summary of Prosecution Opening. See also Sentence Reasons [1]-[44], Appeal Reasons [3]-[6].

Between 28 March and 3 May 2016, the applicant committed the crimes for which he was sentenced. He was 21 years of age at the time he committed the offences. He was 22 years of age at the time of sentencing. The applicant and his co-offender were in a relationship at the relevant time, they were both unemployed and were described by the sentencing judge as ‘heavy ice users’.[4] The applicant and his co-offender burgled multiple properties, which had an impact on multiple victims. The applicant was on bail at the time some of the offences were committed.
[4]Sentence Reasons [11].

On 9 April 2016, Ms…

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 Drew Hancock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Drew Hancock v The Queen [2017] VSCA 239
Case: [2017] VSCA 239
Decision Date: 6 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Drew Hancock was the defendant in a case heard by the court, where he faced The Queen, represented by the prosecution. The dispute centred around the sentence imposed on Hancock following his guilty plea to 29 charges, predominantly involving dishonesty offences. At the time of the offending, Hancock was 21 years old and had a significant drug dependency, specifically on methamphetamine, commonly known as ice. Despite his drug use, Hancock had a generally good criminal record prior to these offences. The crux of the legal dispute was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances and principles relevant to sentencing young offenders.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence was disproportionately harsh, taking into account the principles that typically favour leniency for young offenders. However, this had to be balanced against the serious nature and large scale of the offending. The court had to weigh these considerations against the statutory framework outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 and relevant case law, such as Azzopardi v R. This required a thorough examination of the sentencing principles and the particular facts of Hancock’s case.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. The trial judge had recognised Hancock's age and drug dependency but also emphasised the seriousness and extent of the offending. By applying the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the specific circumstances of the case, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge had balanced the mitigating factors, such as Hancock’s age and drug use, with the aggravating factors, including the scale and nature of the offending. This decision was in line with established legal principles and the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Orders