SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCR 2011 0085
| KAREN HILLS | |
| Applicant | |
| v. | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
---
JUDGES: | WARREN CJ, NETTLE JA, BEACH AJA |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 November 2011 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 18 November 2011 |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VSCA 364 (Revision 1, 20 November 2011) |
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | DPP v Hills [2011] VSC 87 (Kaye J) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Election to have application determined by the Court of Appeal – Whether evidence found during search of premises obtained illegally or improperly– Disclosure of irrelevant and prejudicial material to jury – Whether capable of being cured by direction – Application dismissed – No point of principle.
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Election to have application determined by the Court of Appeal – Applicant convicted of kidnapping, reckless conduct endangering life, intentionally causing serious injury, aggravated burglary and making threat to kill – Applicant sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years – Whether manifestly excessive – Whether sentencing judge mischaracterised the applicant’s role in the offending – Whether sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to a psychologist’s report – Application dismissed – No point of principle.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr MDA Dann | Haines & Polites |
| For the Respondent | Mr T Gyorffy | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
WARREN CJ
NETTLE JA
BEACH AJA:
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her conviction of kidnapping and abduction related offences and, also, leave to appeal against the consequential sentence. On 19 August 2011, Redlich JA refused the applicant leave to appeal. This is a renewal of the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence pursuant to s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
The applicant and her three co-accused – NKC, Brodie Cooper and RAC, were found guilty of a series of offences arising from their involvement in the kidnap and abduction of Leah Freeman from her home in East Brunswick on 9 December 2008. There was an additional co-accused, Craig Hills, brother of the applicant, who was unfit to stand trial. Another individual, Kylie Meulenbrock, pleaded guilty to charges arising out of her participation in the events. She gave evidence at the trial on behalf of the prosecution.
The applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Count Offence Max Penalty Sentence Cumulation 1 Aggravated burglary 25 years 2 years 6 months Nil 2 Kidnapping 25 years 6 years Base 3 Intentionally causing serious injury 20 years 3 years 6 months 5 Making threat to kill 10 years 6 months Nil 7 Reckless conduct endangering life 10 years 4 years 18 months 4 Total effective sentence: 8 years Non-parole period: 5 years
The circumstances of the offending
On the evening of 9 December 2008 the applicant together with Brodie Cooper, RAC, NKC, Kylie Meulenbrock and Craig Hills drove in two vehicles to Each Brunswick. There…
Continue reading Hills v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hills v The Queen [2011] VSCA 364
- Case
- [2011] VSCA 364
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence obtained during the search was admissible, whether the prejudicial material disclosed to the jury could be cured by direction, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had properly assessed the applicant’s role and the psychologist’s report. The court considered the principles of admissibility of evidence, the potential for prejudice to be cured by direction, the principles of sentencing, and the appropriate weight to be given to expert evidence. The court found that the evidence obtained was properly obtained, that any prejudicial material disclosed was not so significant as to cure by direction, that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the applicant’s role and the psychologist’s report.
In light of the findings, the court dismissed both the application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court concluded that there was no point of principle of general application that warranted the court’s intervention. The court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed examination of the evidence, the sentencing principles, and the applicable legal standards. The final order of the court was to dismiss both applications for leave to appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.