Legal Research
Cases
Hampton v The Queen

Hampton v The Queen

Case [2008] NTCCA 5 28 April 2008

Appeal

Sentencing

Charge

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

Hampton v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 5

PARTIES: HAMPTON, Wayne Andrew

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 5 of 2007 (20508002)
DELIVERED:  28 April 2008
HEARING DATE:  21 April 2008
JUDGMENT OF:  Martin (BR) CJ, Riley and Southwood JJ
APPEALED FROM:  Angel J
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW

Application for leave to appeal – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal – error in sentencing – cumulative sentences – principle of totality – sentence manifestly excessive – sentence on an erroneous factual basis

Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84; Brown v Lynch (1982) 15 NTR 9; Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; Liddy v R [2005] NTCCA 4; Miles v The Queen [2001] NTCA 9; Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; Murphy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 15, followed

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:P Elliott
Respondent:  P Usher and E Armitage
Solicitors:
Applicant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril0807
Number of pages:  24

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hampton v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 5

No. CA 5 of 2007 (20508002)
BETWEEN:

WAYNE ANDREW HAMPTON

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: Martin (BR) CJ, Riley and Southwood JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 April 2008)
Martin (BR) CJ:

I agree with the reasons of Riley J for dismissing the applications for leave to appeal and extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.
The crimes were premeditated, callous and vicious. They ended only when the victims escaped. In particular, the second victim, T, was subjected to a prolonged and horrific ordeal which has lifetime consequences for her.
There is no apparent error by the learned sentencing Judge. The individual sentences and total of 24 years are well within the range of the sentencing discretion. Indeed, it was open to his Honour to have reached a total in excess of 24 years.
Riley J:
On 17 July 2006 the applicant pleaded guilty to 13 counts contained in an indictment dated 21 October 2005. There followed a number of “unavoidable delays" until, on 12 April 2007, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a total period of 24 years with a non-parole period fixed at 16 years. On 22 June 2007 an application for leave to appeal was refused by a judge of this Court. The applicant sought to have the application for leave to appeal determined by three judges of the Court. Further, the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal in respect of an additional three proposed grounds of appeal.
At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal the Court refused leave and refused the application for an extension of time. I now set out my…

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 Hampton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hampton v The Queen [2008] NTCCA 5
Case: [2008] NTCCA 5
Decision Date: 28 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hampton appealed to the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence for a number of offences. The appeal concerned the imposition of cumulative sentences and whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive or based on an erroneous factual basis.

The Court was required to consider whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing cumulative sentences, particularly in light of the principle of totality. It also had to determine if the aggregate sentence was so excessive as to be unjust or if it was founded upon incorrect factual assumptions.

The Court applied established principles regarding sentencing, including the principle of totality which requires a sentencing judge to consider the overall impact of cumulative sentences. The Court reviewed the facts and the sentencing remarks of the trial judge, assessing whether the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range and whether any factual errors had influenced the sentencing decision. The Court referred to relevant High Court and Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal decisions in its determination.

The Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and varied the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders