Director of Public Prosecutions v Hogarth (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Tinney, 2 September 2011)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Home invasion – Acting in concert – Offenders motivated by appellant’s grievances against victim’s son – Whether appellant was instigator – Whether planned or spontaneous – Whether sentence of four-and-a-half years manifestly excessive – Prior conviction for aggravated burglary – Disadvantaged background – Appeal dismissed – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 77.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary – Confrontational aggravated burglary – Home invasion – Current sentencing practices for this species of offending – Whether reflective of objective seriousness of offending – Whether reflective of increase in maximum penalty from 15 to 25 years’ imprisonment – Winch v The Queen (2010) 27 VR 658, R v A B (No 2) (2008) 18 VR 391 applied – Sentencing Act1991 (Vic) ss 5(2)(a), (b).
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr P Tehan SC
Slades & Parsons
For the Respondent
Mr B Sonnet
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
MAXWELL P NEAVE JA COGHLAN AJA:
Summary
Home invasion is a particularly nasty form of criminal conduct.[1] Typically, a home invasion involves multiple offenders entering a person’s home, carrying weapons, intending to rob or injure the victims in revenge for some actual or perceived wrong. The entry of the offenders — acting in anger and often fuelled by alcohol — is itself a terrifying experience for the householder(s), irrespective of what may occur after entry.
[1]For further discussion of the terror which this offence often causes its victims, see Bonacci v The Queen [2012] VSCA 170, [1] (‘Bonacci’).
The appellant (‘AH’)[2] pleaded guilty to taking part in a home invasion which had all of these characteristics. His case was unusual, however, in that, although it was AH’s grievances which prompted the entry into the victim’s home, he himself did not go in. He stayed in the car while his two co-offenders proceeded — in accordance with an agreement the three had made — to break in and commit theft. As will appear, the conduct of the co-offenders once inside the house went far beyond the scope of that agreement.
[2]The abbreviation is used for ease of reference not anonymity.
Home invasion is not, of course, a legal term. The offence which a home invader commits is the offence of aggravated burglary under s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). This offence is constituted by an act of burglary (entering a building as a trespasser, with intent to steal or commit assault or cause damage)[3] which has one or other (or both) of the following aggravating…
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 Hogarth v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302
Case
[2012] VSCA 302
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involves the appellant, Hogarth, who was convicted of aggravated burglary and sought to appeal the severity of his sentence. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for his involvement in a home invasion was manifestly excessive, and whether he was the instigator of the crime. The appellant argued that the crime was spontaneous, rather than premeditated, and that he was not the primary instigator.
The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account his prior conviction for aggravated burglary, his disadvantaged background, and the circumstances of the current offence. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offending and the increase in the maximum penalty for aggravated burglary from 15 to 25 years' imprisonment. The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant statutes and previous case law.
The court found that the appellant's sentence of four-and-a-half years was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's prior criminal history, and his disadvantaged background. The court noted that the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offending and was proportionate to the appellant's role in the crime. The court also considered the current sentencing practices for confrontational aggravated burglary, which involved a home invasion, and found that they were reflective of the increase in the maximum penalty for this type of offending.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed on the appellant. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the appellant's offending, and that it reflected the objective seriousness of the crime. The court also noted that the appellant's disadvantaged background and prior criminal history were taken into account in the sentencing process.