Haylock v The Queen - [2000] WASCA 287

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: HAYLOCK -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 287

CORAM: IPP J
WALLWORK J
PARKER J

HEARD: 1 AUGUST 2000

DELIVERED : 10 OCTOBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CCA 150 of 1999

BETWEEN: CHAD DANIEL HAYLOCK
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - 12 offences including 4 counts of armed robbery - Totality principle - Whether sentence of 12 years imprisonment with eligibility for parole excessive - 21 year old offender with difficult background

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms J A Wager
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC & Mr J R N Rowe

Solicitors:

Applicant: Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 20
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Parker J. I am in agreement with those reasons and have nothing further to add.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Parker J and to the order proposed by his Honour.
PARKER J:

Introduction

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences totalling 12 years imprisonment with eligibility for parole, passed upon him by Murray J on 16 July 1999 for a number of offences committed during a four week period in November and December 1998. The offences were committed whilst the applicant was on parole in respect of previous sentences imposed in Victoria. Furthermore, between the commission of the offences the subject of this appeal and sentencing, the applicant breached an Intensive Supervision Order (ISO) imposed for offences he committed in 1997 and was sentenced at the Perth Court of Petty Sessions to 21 months imprisonment.
At the time of sentencing the applicant was aged 21 and was a sentenced prisoner. The sentences imposed by the sentencing Judge were cumulative upon the sentences the applicant was serving at the time, so that service of them commenced from the 11 August 1999.
Murray J sentenced the applicant in respect of four counts of armed robbery, four counts of stealing a motor vehicle, two counts of burglary, one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of stealing. Many of these sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
The following table indicates the sentences he imposed:-

COUNT	OFFENCE	SENTENCE	CUMULATIVE	CONCURRENT	EFFECTIVE TOTAL (PROGRESSIVE)
1	Stealing MV	2 years imprisonment	2 years
2	Stealing MV	2 years imprisonment	With counts 1,5 & 9	2 years
5	Stealing MV	2 years imprisonment	With counts 1,2 & 9	2 years
9	Stealing MV	2 years imprisonment	With counts 1,2 & 5	2 years

COUNT	OFFENCE	SENTENCE	CUMULATIVE	CONCURRENT	EFFECTIVE TOTAL (PROGRESSIVE)
3	Burglary	3 years imprisonment	With counts 1,2,5, 9 & 4	3 years
4	Aggravated Burglary	3 years imprisonment	With counts 1,2,5,9 & 3	3 years
6	Armed Robbery

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 Haylock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haylock v The Queen [2000] WASCA 287
Case: [2000] WASCA 287
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the High Court was brought by Haylock, who sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal pertained to a total of twelve offences, including four counts of armed robbery, for which Haylock was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after nine years. The respondent was the Crown, represented by the Queen. The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive, considering the totality principle and the offender's background.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, specifically whether the twelve-year sentence with a non-parole period of nine years was excessive. The court was required to consider the totality principle, which requires that the total punishment for multiple offences should not be disproportionate to the aggregate seriousness of the offending behaviour. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appellant's difficult background and his age at the time of the offences.

The court found that the sentence was not excessive. The majority held that the sentence was within the range of reasonable responses and appropriately reflected the totality of the offending behaviour. The court emphasised the seriousness of the armed robberies and the need to deter such conduct. The court also considered Haylock's difficult background but found that it did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. 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 Court of Appeal was affirmed. The majority concluded that the sentence was just and appropriate, taking into account the totality principle and the circumstances of the appellant.

Orders