HINTZ -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 38

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 38
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:262/2000	Heard:	6 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	7/03/02
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID GRAEME HINTZ THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Burglary of commercial premises Male aged 22 with bad record 4 years with parole eligibility not manifestly excessive Criminal law Sentencing Parole Order for part-cumulation Effect of order on head sentence Effect of order on non-parole period Limits on extent of cumulation that may be ordered
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 88(3)(d), s 88(4), s 93(1), s 94(3)
Case References:	R v Duff [1999] WASC 124 Hayward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 237 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Duff [1999] WASC 124 R v VC (A Child), unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990142; 23 March 1999 R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990091; 16 February

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HINTZ -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 38 CORAM : WALLWORK J

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 6 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 262 of 2000 BETWEEN : DAVID GRAEME HINTZ

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Burglary of commercial premises - Male aged 22 with bad record - 4 years with parole eligibility not manifestly excessive

Criminal law - Sentencing - Parole - Order for part-cumulation - Effect of order on head sentence - Effect of order on non-parole period - Limits on extent of cumulation that may be ordered

Legislation:

Sentencing Act1995 (WA), s 88(3)(d), s 88(4), s 93(1), s 94(3)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms J T Fisher

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Justine Fisher

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

R v Duff [1999] WASC 124

Case(s) also cited:

Hayward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 237
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
R v Duff [1999] WASC 124
R v VC (A Child), unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990142; 23 March 1999
R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990091; 16 February

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Anderson J. There is nothing I wish to add.

2 ANDERSON J: This is an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence and for leave…

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 Hintz v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hintz v The Queen [2002] WASCA 38
Case: [2002] WASCA 38
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hintz, appealed against his sentence for burglary of commercial premises. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Hintz, a 22-year-old with a history of criminal activity, had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years with parole eligibility after serving one year. Hintz argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the order for part-cumulation in relation to parole eligibility was unlawful.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the order for part-cumulation in relation to parole eligibility was lawful. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the order for part-cumulation was lawful. The court found that the order for part-cumulation did not affect the head sentence or the non-parole period, and that the limits on the extent of cumulation that may be ordered were not breached.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the order for part-cumulation was lawful. The court held that the order for part-cumulation did not affect the head sentence or the non-parole period, and that the limits on the extent of cumulation that may be ordered were not breached. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.