HAYES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 230
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 230 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:20/2003 | 12 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J PARKER J MILLER J | 25/09/03 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JEREMY NIGEL HAYES THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Grievous bodily harm Very serious injury Previous offences of violence Dispute on application for leave as to facts of case Whether sentencing Judge erred in assessment of facts Allegation that victim provoked commission of offence Sentence of 5 years imprisonment upheld |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Gallegos v R [1999] WASCA 191 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Munmeri v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8746; 1 March 1991 R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278 R v Kerr, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970402; 15 August 1997 R v Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HAYES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 230 CORAM : MURRAY J
- PARKER J
MILLER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Grievous bodily harm - Very serious injury - Previous offences of violence - Dispute on application for leave as to facts of case - Whether sentencing Judge erred in assessment of facts - Allegation that victim provoked commission of offence - Sentence of 5 years imprisonment upheld
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Mr P J Urquhart & Mr S F Rafferty
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Case(s) also cited:
Gallegos v R [1999] WASCA 191
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
Munmeri v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8746; 1 March 1991
R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278
R v Kerr, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970402; 15 August 1997
R v Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This application for leave to appeal was presented by the applicant in person. He was, however, represented by very experienced counsel at the hearing at first instance in the District Court. He was charged with doing grievous bodily harm to his wife. Under the Criminal Code, s 297, in circumstances such as this case, that offence is punishable by 10 years imprisonment. The Chief Judge of the District Court, Hammond CJDC, sentenced the…
Continue reading Hayes v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hayes v The Queen [2003] WASCA 230
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 230
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, the matter of Hayes v The Queen was heard and determined. The appellant, Hayes, was convicted of grievous bodily harm causing very serious injury to another person. The case involved a dispute over the application for leave as to the facts of the case, particularly whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the facts. A significant point of contention was the allegation that the victim had provoked the commission of the offence. Hayes sought to appeal the sentence of 5 years imprisonment that was imposed upon him.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the assessment of the facts by the sentencing judge, the relevance of the alleged provocation by the victim, and whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had not correctly evaluated the mitigating factors, particularly the role of the victim's alleged provocation, which warranted a lesser sentence. Conversely, the respondent contended that the sentencing judge's assessment of the facts and the resulting sentence were appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the appellant's history of violent offences.
The court examined the sentencing judge's assessment of the facts and concluded that there was no error in the evaluation. The court found that the mitigating factors, including the alleged provocation by the victim, had been appropriately considered and weighed against the severity of the offence. The court further noted that the sentence of 5 years imprisonment was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the appellant's prior history of violence. Accordingly, the court upheld the sentence, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the assessment of the facts by the sentencing judge, the relevance of the alleged provocation by the victim, and whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had not correctly evaluated the mitigating factors, particularly the role of the victim's alleged provocation, which warranted a lesser sentence. Conversely, the respondent contended that the sentencing judge's assessment of the facts and the resulting sentence were appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the appellant's history of violent offences.
The court examined the sentencing judge's assessment of the facts and concluded that there was no error in the evaluation. The court found that the mitigating factors, including the alleged provocation by the victim, had been appropriately considered and weighed against the severity of the offence. The court further noted that the sentence of 5 years imprisonment was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the appellant's prior history of violence. Accordingly, the court upheld the sentence, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.