Legal Research
Cases
Hill v The Queen

Hill v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 349 13 December 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0152

ALEXANDRA HILL	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 349
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1363 (Judge Hampel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal – Sentence – One charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice – Related summary offence – Forged letter of employment presented to sentencing judge – Sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment and 18 month community correction order – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Extension of time to seek leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C K Wareham	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
McLEISH JA:

On 31 August 2021, the applicant pleaded guilty before a judge of the County Court to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice,[1] and one related summary charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail.[2]
[1]Contrary to the common law. See also Crimes Act 1958 s 320.
[2]Bail Act 1977 s 30B.

On 16 September 2021, the judge sentenced her as follows:[3]
[3]DPP v Hill [2021] VCC 1363 (‘Sentencing Remarks’).

Charge on indictment L11685431	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Attempting to pervert the course of justice	25 years’ imprisonment	6 months’ imprisonment, followed by 18 month community correction order	Base
Related summary offence
Charge 3	Committing an indictable offence while on bail	3 months’ imprisonment	1 month’s imprisonment	-
Total effective sentence		6 months’ imprisonment, followed by 18 month community correction order
Non-parole period		–
Pre-sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991		–
6AAA statement		3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months
Other relevant orders		–

The applicant now applies for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

For the reasons that follow, the application for an extension of time will be refused.

Circumstances of offending

In June 2019, the applicant (who was then 26 years old) pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to a single charge of handling stolen goods.[4] In mitigation, the applicant submitted, through her lawyer, that she had recently commenced employment as a barista.
[4]For this charge, the magistrate ultimately imposed a community correction order, which included mental health treatment and drug rehabilitation conditions.

The magistrate requested proof of employment and adjourned the hearing to enable that to be done. The applicant produced to her lawyer a letter of employment, purportedly from her manager at the Little Rogue Café. The letter had the Little Rogue Café logo on it and provided mobile telephone contact details. The letter stated that the applicant had been employed at the café for eight weeks, and had disclosed her offending before she was hired. It said that she…

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 Hill v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hill v The Queen [2021] VSCA 349
Case: [2021] VSCA 349
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hill brought an application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice and a related summary offence. Hill was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and an 18-month community correction order. The application was made late, and Hill sought an extension of time to bring the application. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the extension of time should be granted.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the offences, which involved Hill forging a letter of employment and presenting it to the sentencing judge. The court considered that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences, taking into account the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that Hill had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting an extension of time to seek leave to appeal. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was dismissed, and leave to appeal was denied.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed on Hill was not manifestly excessive, and there were no grounds for granting an extension of time to seek leave to appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders