Harley Hicks v The Queen

Harley Hicks was convicted of the murder of an infant, committed during the course of a burglary, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 32 years. Hicks sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the absence of remorse should not have been treated as a circumstance of aggravation and that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge erred in considering the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor and whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The court examined whether the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances and the severity of the offence warranted the length of the non-parole period, alongside the arguments presented by Hicks regarding his prospects of rehabilitation and the need for community protection.

The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the nature of the crime, Hicks's criminal history, and his anti-social personality disorder. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in treating the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, as it was consistent with the sentencing principles and the severity of the offence. Furthermore, the court found that the non-parole period was not manifestly excessive, given the need to protect the community and Hicks's poor prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances was reasonable, and the sentence imposed was not disproportionate.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Hicks's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The reasoning was that the trial judge's consideration of the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor was consistent with established sentencing principles and the gravity of the offence. Additionally, the non-parole period was deemed appropriate, reflecting the need for community protection and Hicks's limited potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the arguments presented by Hicks did not establish a reasonable arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive.