Hancock v The Queen

The case of Hancock v The Queen involved an appeal against a sentence imposed following the applicant's plea of guilty to two charges of armed robbery. The applicant had also been convicted of attempted burglary. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed, which was a total effective sentence of 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis of fresh evidence, specifically that she was pregnant at the time of sentencing, which was not known to either the applicant or the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the fresh evidence of pregnancy constituted a significant mitigating factor warranting an appeal against sentence, and if so, whether the principles set out in R v Verdins applied to justify a reduction in the sentence. The court had to consider whether the fresh evidence could have reasonably influenced the sentence had it been known at the time, and if the new sentence would be manifestly unjust without it.

The court held that the fresh evidence of the applicant's pregnancy was a significant mitigating factor that could have reasonably influenced the sentence. It was noted that the applicant's pregnancy was not only a mitigating factor, but it also related to her capacity for rehabilitation. The principles from R v Verdins were applied, particularly principles 5 and 6, which address the impact of fresh evidence on the fairness and justness of the original sentence. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly unjust in light of the new evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed. The applicant was re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 249 days imprisonment, with time already served, and upon release, she is to be subject to a Community Corrections Order with treatment/rehabilitation conditions for a period of two years.