Hazell v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 313

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0224

TAYLER CHRISTIAN HAZELL	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 November 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 November 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 313
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 84 (Judge Tinney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Aggravated burglary, armed robbery (2 charges), robbery (3 charges), threat to kill, theft (2 charges) and causing injury recklessly – TES of 6 years and 8 months, with NPP of 3 years and 10 months – Serious offending – Significant prior criminal history – Early plea of guilty – Background of significant disadvantage – Verdins principle 5 – Sentenced after serving 15 months for offending committed in NSW during same period – Totality – Whether sentence infringed principles of totality – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms G Connelly	Greg Thomas Barrister and Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to ten charges across two indictments (Indictment J13201971/CR-19-00437, which contained six charges relating to offences committed by the appellant on 4 September 2017; and Indictment J13196518/CR-19-00438, which contained four charges relating to offences he committed on 6 September 2017). In total, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary, two charges of armed robbery, three charges of robbery, one charge of making a threat to kill, two charges of theft and one charge of recklessly causing injury.

On 14 February 2020, following a plea hearing conducted on 12 February 2020, the appellant was sentenced as follows:

INDICTMENT J13201971 / CR-19-00437

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Theft (contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958) 10 years 2 months Nil

2 Aggravated burglary (contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958) 25 years 3 years and 6 months Base

3 Armed robbery (contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958) 25 years 3 years and 3 months 9 months

4 Causing injury recklessly (contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958) 5 years 10 months 3 months

5 Make threat to kill (contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958) 10 years 8 months 2 months

6 Theft (contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958) 10 years 2 days Nil

Total Effective Sentence on Indictment J13201971: 4 years and 8 months

INDICTMENT J13196518 / CR-19-00438

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Armed robbery (contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958) 25 years 3 years and 6 months Base

2 Robbery (contrary to s 75 of the Crimes Act 1958) 15 years 14 months 4 months

3 Robbery (contrary to s 75 of the Crimes Act 1958) 15 years 14 months 4 months

4 Robbery (contrary…

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 Hazell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hazell v The Queen [2021] VSCA 313
Case: [2021] VSCA 313
Decision Date: 17 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazell was convicted of multiple serious offences, including aggravated burglary, armed robbery, robbery, threat to kill, theft, and causing injury recklessly. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence (TES) of six years and eight months, with a non-parole period (NPP) of three years and ten months. Hazell appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and infringed the principles of totality. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed on Hazell was manifestly excessive and whether it contravened the principles of totality. Hazell's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the totality of his offending and the fact that he had already served 15 months for similar offences in New South Wales. The court was required to determine if the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and whether it adhered to the principles of totality and the Verdins principle 5.

The court held that the sentence did not infringe the principles of totality and was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences, taking into account the totality of Hazell's offending and his significant prior criminal history. The court also considered Hazell's early plea of guilty and his background of significant disadvantage. The Verdins principle 5, which emphasises the importance of the totality of offending, was also taken into account. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not manifest a clear excess.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders