Hills v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 364


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:

  1. 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. 

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Hills v The Queen [2011] VSCA 364
Case
[2011] VSCA 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hills v The Queen involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence by the applicant, who had been convicted of various serious offences, including kidnapping, reckless conduct endangering life, intentionally causing serious injury, aggravated burglary, and making a threat to kill. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the basis that evidence obtained during a search of his premises was either illegally or improperly obtained, and that prejudicial material was disclosed to the jury. Additionally, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had mischaracterised his role in the offending and failed to appropriately weigh a psychologist’s report.

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.