Hatzis v The Queen

The case of Hatzis v The Queen involved an appeal by the respondent, who had been convicted of multiple offences including aggravated burglary, recklessly causing injury, intentionally causing injury, criminal damage, and persistent contravention of a family violence protection order. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant an extension of time to appeal the sentence, which had been filed almost three years after the original sentence was handed down. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the total effective sentence of five years and one month's imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, was manifestly excessive.

The court assessed the reasons for the delay in lodging the appeal and found them unsatisfactory. However, it exercised its discretion to grant the extension in the interests of justice. The court then proceeded to consider the substantive appeal, focusing on the severity of the sentence. It was argued that the objective gravity of the offending had been assessed too highly, leading to an excessively severe sentence. The court agreed, finding that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was re-sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months.

In reaching its decision, the court referred to DPP v Meyers, where similar considerations were applied in reassessing the proportionality of the sentence. The final orders included the granting of leave to appeal, the allowance of the appeal, and the resentencing of the respondent to a reduced term of imprisonment.