Hinchliffe v The Queen - [2001] WASCA 15

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: HINCHLIFFE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 15

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
IPP J
WALLWORK J

HEARD: 17 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 2000

PUBLISHED : 1 FEBRUARY 2001

FILE NO/S: CCA 191 of 2000

BETWEEN: MARK RAYMOND HINCHLIFFE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Assault causing bodily harm - Offender sought out victim at workplace - Threat of further violence properly taken into account - Sentence of two years and six months not excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code s 315

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr L M Levy
Respondent: Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Laurie Levy
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bensegger v The Queen [1979] WAR 65
Medcraft (1992) 60 A Crim R 181
Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305
Redenbach (1991) 52 A Crim R 95
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
Symonds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
The Queen v Teremoana (1990) 54 SASR 30

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ : This was an application for leave to appeal against sentence. At the conclusion of the argument on 17 November 2000 the Court was unanimously of the opinion that the application should be refused. It was then indicated that the Court would publish the reasons for reaching that conclusion later. These are my reasons for joining in the making of the order that application for leave should be refused.
On 8 August 2000 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty to two offences contrary to s 317 of the Criminal Code, namely, that:
(1)on or about 20 September 1999 at Rockingham he assaulted Jaqueline Margaret Hinchliffe and thereby did her bodily harm; and
(2)on 11 November 1999 at Mandurah the applicant assaulted Michael Ian Wright and thereby did him bodily harm.
There was a preliminary hearing with respect to count (1) on 12 and 13 June, the transcript of which was tendered in evidence together with a medical report in respect of the complainant the subject of count (1) and the transcript of recordings of intercepted telephone conversations between the offender and the complainant in respect of count (1) and between the offender and a number of other persons.
So far as count (2) was concerned, this was treated as a plea of guilty under the fast‑track system. The plea of guilty was entered when the Crown substituted a complaint for the offence contained in count (2) on the indictment at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing with respect to count (1) and another offence. There was a videotaped record of interview conducted with the offender, but he declined to answer any questions in respect of either of the two offences.
On 14 August 2000…

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 Hinchliffe v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hinchliffe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 15
Case: [2001] WASCA 15
Decision Date: 1 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Hinchliffe v The Queen was heard, involving the appellant, Hinchliffe, and the respondent, The Queen. The dispute centred around the sentence imposed on Hinchliffe for assault causing bodily harm. The facts of the case involved Hinchliffe deliberately seeking out his victim at the workplace and attacking him, resulting in bodily harm. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was excessive, particularly considering the threat of further violence that Hinchliffe posed to the victim.

The court considered several factors in determining whether the sentence was appropriate. The judge acknowledged that the threat of further violence was a significant factor and that it had been properly taken into account in the sentencing. The court also examined the severity of the assault and the need to deter Hinchliffe and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court found that the sentence of two years and six months imprisonment was not excessive, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principles of sentencing for assault causing bodily harm. The judge emphasised that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that the threat of further violence was a relevant consideration. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders