Hawkins v The Queen - [2004] TASSC 55

[2004] TASSC 55

CITATION: Hawkins v R [2004] TASSC 55

PARTIES:  HAWKINS, Garth Stephen
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 118/2003
DELIVERED ON:  10 June 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  24 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Slicer and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Other matters – Lapse of time between crime and punishment – Evidence of rehabilitation.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [851]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Other offences against the person – Sexual offences – Offences against children – Prolonged period of offending followed by significant period of non-offending – Fixed parole eligibility period – No suspension of portion of sentence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [175]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  P W Tree
           Respondent:  M A Stoddart
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Baker Tierney & Wilson
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 55
Number of Paragraphs: 13

Serial No 55/2004
File No CCA 118/2003

GARTH STEPHEN HAWKINS v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CRAWFORD J

SLICER J
EVANS J

10 June 2004

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 55/2004
File No CCA 118/2003

GARTH STEPHEN HAWKINS v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  CRAWFORD J
  10 June 2004

I agree in substance with the reasons for judgment of Slicer J. In my opinion the total of 7½ years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4½ years was not manifestly excessive when regard is had to all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the appellant had not committed any other offence for almost 20 years. The punishment was consistent with the range of punishments that have been imposed for similar crimes.

With respect to the view of Slicer J, I would not go so far as to say that by allowing the appellant to be eligible for release on parole the learned judge was effectively suspending portion of the sentence of imprisonment. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the non-parole period of 4½ years adequately took into account the fact that the appellant appeared not to have re-offended for almost 20 years. It was directed towards a continuation of his apparent rehabilitation but at the same time required his incarceration for the minimum period appropriate for his crimes.
File No CCA 118/2003

GARTH STEPHEN HAWKINS v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J
10 June 2004

The appellant by his notice of appeal claims that a sentence of imprisonment of 7½ years following his plea to the crimes of maintaining a sexual relationship, unlawful sexual intercourse and indecent assault, is erroneous on the grounds that:

"1 The learned sentencing judge erred in law in that he failed to give any or any sufficient weight to the accepted fact that the appellant had, as at the date of sentencing,…

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 Hawkins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hawkins v R [2004] TASSC 55
Case: [2004] TASSC 55
Decision Date: 10 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hawkins v The Queen involved a criminal appeal where the appellant, Mr Hawkins, contested the severity of his sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision of the lower court which had sentenced Mr Hawkins to a significant term of imprisonment for his criminal activities. The nature of the dispute centred around the appropriateness of the sentence given, particularly in light of the considerable time that had elapsed between the commission of the crime and the imposition of the sentence, as well as the evidence of Mr Hawkins' rehabilitation efforts.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had appropriately considered the factors required by statute and common law when imposing the sentence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the lower court adequately took into account the length of time that had passed since the offence was committed, the appellant's demonstrated rehabilitation, and other relevant mitigating circumstances. The appellant argued that these factors warranted a lesser sentence than that imposed by the lower court.

The court examined the sentencing principles and held that the lower court had indeed considered the relevant factors, including the delay between the offence and sentencing, as well as evidence of the appellant's rehabilitation. The court found that the lower court had balanced these considerations with the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution. The reasoning of the court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and confirmed that the lower court had exercised its discretion within the bounds of legal authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court would stand. The court's decision reinforced the principle that significant weight must be given to the factors that mitigate against a harsh sentence, but these must be balanced against the overarching need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders