HODGES -v- HAGAN [2001] WASCA 41

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 41
Case No:	SJA:1001/2001	Heard:	05 FEBRUARY 2001
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	16/02/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	WENDY GEORGINA HODGES TRAVIS HAGAN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal Sentence of 14 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive Offences resulted from pressure from drug addicts of appellant's extended family Offences over a very short period of time Magistrate erred in discounting the significance of the absence of convictions for 9 years Applicant sole parent of two young children Magistrate erred in concluding that a term of suspended imprisonment would not act as a significant general deterrence Suspended sentence a strong incentive not to offend Appeal allowed and sentence restructured to a total of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Little v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970041; 3 February 1997 Pezzino v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970308; 17 April 1997 Van Thong Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Hayward v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 416 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : HODGES -v- HAGAN [2001] WASCA 41 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 05 FEBRUARY 2001 DELIVERED : 16 FEBRUARY 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1001 of 2001 BETWEEN : WENDY GEORGINA HODGES

Appellant

AND

TRAVIS HAGAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal - Sentence of 14 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive - Offences resulted from pressure from drug addicts of appellant's extended family - Offences over a very short period of time - Magistrate erred in discounting the significance of the absence of convictions for 9 years - Applicant sole parent of two young children - Magistrate erred in concluding that a term of suspended imprisonment would not act as a significant general deterrence - Suspended sentence a strong incentive not to offend - Appeal allowed and sentence restructured to a total of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Ms A L Forrester

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
Little v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970041; 3 February 1997
Pezzino v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970308; 17 April 1997
Van Thong Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Hayward v Hubbard [2000] WASCA 416
R v GP

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 Hodges v Hagan

Details

AGLC: Hodges v Hagan [2001] WASCA 41
Case: [2001] WASCA 41
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hodges, appealed against his sentence of 14 months' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria for drug-related offences. Hodges' appeal was grounded on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances under which the offences were committed. These offences were driven by pressure from drug addicts within Hodges' extended family, and occurred over a brief period. Hodges, who was the sole parent of two young children, had no prior convictions for nine years, a fact which the magistrate failed to adequately consider. The appeal also contested the magistrate's conclusion that a suspended sentence would not serve as a significant deterrent. Hodges argued that a suspended sentence would provide a strong incentive to refrain from future offending.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the mitigating factors presented and whether the magistrate had erred in not considering the full context of Hodges' circumstances. This included assessing the pressure exerted by drug addicts, the short duration over which the offences occurred, Hodges' role as a sole parent, and the potential deterrent effect of a suspended sentence. The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the magistrate had overlooked significant mitigating factors. The appeal hinged on whether these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the sentence of 14 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court noted the pressure from drug addicts and the short period over which the offences occurred, and highlighted that the magistrate had not sufficiently accounted for Hodges' lack of prior convictions and his role as a sole parent. Additionally, the court accepted that a suspended sentence could serve as an effective deterrent. Consequently, the sentence was restructured to a total of 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. This decision recognised the mitigating factors and the potential benefits of a suspended sentence in preventing future offending.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was restructured to a total of 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.