Hall v The Queen - [1999] WASCA 176

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: HALL -v- R [1999] WASCA 176

CORAM: IPP J
ANDERSON J
HEENAN J

HEARD: 12 AUGUST 1999

DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: CCA 59 of 1999

BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN HALL
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Bank robbery - Two robberies on one day - Aggregate sentence of 7 years with parole not set aside as excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 391

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr P J M Sullivan
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC & Ms V A Prentice

Solicitors:

Applicant: Paul Sullivan
Respondent: Acting State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
Taylor v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 62 ALJR 224
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

IPP J: have read the reasons to be published by Anderson J. I agree with them and his Honour's conclusions. I have nothing further to add.
ANDERSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences handed down in this Court on 31 March last, whereby the applicant was sentenced to a total of 7 years' imprisonment in respect of two bank robberies committed on the same day, 12 October 1998.
The applicant had been presented on a joint indictment with one Blair. The indictment contained seven counts. Five of them related only to Blair, one of them related to the applicant and Blair, and the last count related to the applicant only.
The facts are that, at about 11.45 am on the date in question, the applicant and Blair entered the Wembley branch of the National Australia Bank in Cambridge Street with the intention of robbing the bank. Blair approached the service counter with a bag and handed the teller a note. When she had difficulty reading it, Blair said: "This is a hold up. Give me the money." The applicant was in the bank keeping watch and ready to come to Blair's assistance if necessary. There was no weapon, although the teller was under the impression that Blair had a concealed weapon. The teller activated the alarm button, placed a quantity of money into the bag and, with admirable presence of mind, also put a dye bomb in the bag. Blair was urging her to put more money in the bag and to hurry up. He and the applicant then ran out of the bank and made off on foot to a vehicle parked nearby. There was another person in the vehicle. The dye bomb exploded in the bag, which Blair then discarded. All the money - $1,070 - was recovered, but, as counsel informed the Court,…

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 Hall v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hall v The Queen [1999] WASCA 176
Case: [1999] WASCA 176
Decision Date: 14 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v The Queen involved the appellant, Hall, who had committed two bank robberies on the same day. The issue before the court was whether the aggregate sentence of seven years, with parole eligibility, was excessive. The court was asked to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting intervention by the court of appeal. The High Court of Australia heard the case and provided its reasoning and decision.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the aggregate sentence imposed on Hall was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the sentence was so disproportionate to the crimes committed that it amounted to an error of law, justifying appellate intervention. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

In its decision, the High Court held that the aggregate sentence of seven years with parole eligibility was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the severity of the crimes but found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence to stand, unless there was a clear error of law. The High Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of acceptable outcomes and did not constitute an error of law warranting appellate intervention.

The court did not set aside the sentence, thereby affirming the trial judge's decision. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of respecting the trial judge's assessment in sentencing matters, unless there is a manifest error. This case highlights the principles of proportionality and the need to protect the community, while also recognising the trial judge's role in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders