Hillen v The Queen

The appellant, Hillen, appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge following a jury verdict of guilty on one count of unlawful damage to property. The sentence comprised two years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and three months. The appeal was heard by Grant CJ, Southwood and Kelly JJ.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the sentencing judge had failed to make necessary findings on sentence, whether relevant considerations had been overlooked, and whether an irrelevant consideration, specifically the content of a pre-sentence report prepared for earlier offending, had been improperly taken into account. The court was also required to determine whether the imposed sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s decision. It reasoned that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the inclusion of the pre-sentence report, even if prepared for prior offending, did not constitute an irrelevant consideration that vitiated the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust, and therefore dismissed the appeal.