HAYES -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 56

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 56
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:137/2001	Heard:	15 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J ANDERSON J WHEELER J	Delivered:	18/03/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal against sentence allowed in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RIKI NEIL HAYES THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Totality principle Offender's antecedents Remorse Gravity of offences Turns on own facts Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Drug addiction Lack of maturity Need for rehabilitation Mitigation Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Cable v The Queen [2001] WASCA 390 Gordon v The Queen (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 Jeffree v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980258, 1 May 1998 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HAYES -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 56 CORAM : WALLWORK J

ANDERSON J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 15 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 18 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 137 of 2001 BETWEEN : RIKI NEIL HAYES

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Totality principle - Offender's antecedents - Remorse - Gravity of offences - Turns on own facts

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Drug addiction - Lack of maturity - Need for rehabilitation - Mitigation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal against sentence allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D P A Moen

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Legal Aid WA

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Cable v The Queen [2001] WASCA 390
Gordon v The Queen (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
Jeffree v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980258, 1 May 1998
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions of Wheeler J.

2 There is nothing I wish to add.

3 ANDERSON J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. I agree with them and have nothing to add.

4 WHEELER J: On 9 January 2001 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of three counts of burglary (human habitation), one count of aggravated burglary (human habitation, armed and in company), two counts of armed robbery, one count of stealing and a breach of bail. These convictions placed him in breach of an intensive supervision order imposed in…

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 Hayes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hayes v The Queen [2002] WASCA 56
Case: [2002] WASCA 56
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was heard by the High Court of Australia. Hayes, the appellant, was convicted of various serious drug-related offences. The respondent, The Queen, sought to uphold the sentence imposed on Hayes. The appeal focused on the severity and proportionality of the sentence, taking into account Hayes's personal circumstances, including his history of drug addiction and lack of maturity at the time of the offences. Hayes argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced, while The Queen maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences committed.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of Hayes's personal circumstances, including his drug addiction and lack of maturity. The court also had to consider the totality principle in sentencing, which requires the court to consider the cumulative effect of multiple offences when determining an appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in its assessment of the sentence.

In its decision, the court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was excessive given Hayes's personal circumstances. The court recognised that Hayes had shown remorse for his actions and had a history of drug addiction, which had significantly impacted his decision-making abilities at the time of the offences. The court also noted that Hayes was relatively young at the time of the offences and had a need for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence should be reduced to reflect these mitigating factors. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part, and the sentence was reduced accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against sentence allowed in part

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.