Legal Research
Cases
Hayden v The Queen

Hayden v The Queen

Case [2003] WASCA 210 9 September 2003

Sentencing

Order of Service of Sentences

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: HAYDEN -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 210

CORAM: ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J
MCKECHNIE J

HEARD: 24 JULY 2003

DELIVERED : 9 SEPTEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CCA 249 of 2002

BETWEEN: DAVID PAUL HAYDEN
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal practice and procedure - Sentencing - Order of service of sentences - Effect of concurrent sentences on order of service

Legislation:

Sentence Administration Act 1995 (WA)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 32

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr A E Monisse
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: GC & KC Christou
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
R v Roworth [2003] WASCA 120
R v Valentine [2003] WASCA 7
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Forbes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950226; 20 February 1995
Hayden v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940441; 24 August 1994
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 91 A Crim R 1; 17 WAR 467

ANDERSON J: I have read the judgment of McKechnie J and agree with it. There is nothing I wish to add.
STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for decision of McKechnie J. I agree with them. There is nothing I wish to add.
MCKECHNIE J: On 4 December 2002 the applicant, having pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, was convicted of one count of armed robbery and one count of burglary. He also acknowledged his guilt in relation to a series of matters brought into the Supreme Court pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 32.
The sentencing Judge, Murray J, observing that the applicant would get a very considerable credit for the process of the fast‑track pleas of guilty and the s 32 notice procedure, imposed a term of 5 years imprisonment in respect of the armed robbery; 18 months imprisonment in respect of the burglary, and in respect of the other matters, sentences which ranged from 3 months to 1 year. He ordered that the imprisonment for the burglary be served cumulatively on the armed robbery and structured the other sentences so that they resulted in a cumulative additional sentence of 18 months, to make the total term of imprisonment one of 8 years. He declined to order parole.
The applicant appeals on two grounds. The first is that "the overall sentence of 8 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances", particularised at the hearing as follows:
"a)The 5 year sentence…

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 Hayden v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hayden v The Queen [2003] WASCA 210
Case: [2003] WASCA 210
Decision Date: 9 SEPTEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hayden v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was asked to consider the proper order of service of concurrent sentences in criminal cases. The appellant, Hayden, was convicted of two offences and sentenced to imprisonment concurrently. The central issue before the Court was whether the order in which these concurrent sentences should be served was determined by the date of conviction or the date of sentencing. The Court was asked to clarify the effect of concurrent sentences on the order of their service.

The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of criminal law and sentencing. It held that the order of service of concurrent sentences is not determined by the date of conviction or sentencing, but rather by the terms of the sentence itself. The Court emphasised that concurrent sentences are intended to run concurrently, and the order of service should not be influenced by the timing of the convictions or sentences. The Court also noted that any ambiguity in the order of service should be resolved in favour of the accused, ensuring that the sentence is served in a manner that is just and equitable.

The Court's decision clarified the law regarding the order of service of concurrent sentences. It held that the order of service is not determined by the date of conviction or sentencing, but rather by the terms of the sentence itself. The Court's ruling ensures that concurrent sentences are served in a manner that is consistent with their intended effect, and provides guidance for the courts in determining the order of service in future cases. The Court's decision also reinforces the principle that any ambiguity in the order of service should be resolved in favour of the accused. The Court's judgment provides clarity and consistency in the law, and will be of practical importance to practitioners in the criminal justice system.

Orders