HOOD -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 98

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 98
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:229/1999	Heard:	4 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J	Delivered:	12/04/00
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal against conviction dismissed Leave to appeal against sentence refused
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL JOHN HOOD THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Robbery Victim withdrew money from ATM Offender stole money and endeavoured to run away Victim grabbed hold of offender Offender struggled to get free Whether his struggle constituted "actual violence" sufficient to amount to robbery Sentencing Robbery 4 years imprisonment imposed Whether in this case a non-custodial sentence should have been imposed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA) s 391
Case References:	Miles v The Queen (1977) 17 WAR 518 Plunket Horner OB 1790 2 East PC 703 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Gnosil [1824] 1 CAR & P 304 R v Hay (1925) 19 QJPR 44 R v Hay (1925) The Queensland Justice of the Peace 44 Taylor v The Queen, unreported CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 The Queen v De Simoni (1980) 147 CLR 383 Thomson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980482; 3 August 1998 Brown v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6028; 3 October 1985 Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 5 August 1994 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Harrison (1930) 22 Cr App R 82 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 Reppas v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970221; 15 May 1997 Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960 Tapper v Fowler, Butterworths unreported; SCt of WA; BC8700710; 28 August 1987 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HOOD -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 98 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

HEARD : 4 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 12 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 229 of 1999

CCA 230 of 1999

BETWEEN : MICHAEL JOHN HOOD

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Robbery - Victim withdrew money from ATM - Offender stole money and endeavoured to run away - Victim grabbed hold of offender - Offender struggled to get free - Whether his struggle constituted "actual violence" sufficient to amount to robbery

Sentencing - Robbery - 4 years imprisonment imposed - Whether in this case a non-custodial sentence should have been imposed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA) s 391

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Leave to appeal against sentence refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P R Eaton

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant :…

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 Hood v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 98
Case: [2000] WASCA 98
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hood v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Hood, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The dispute centered around whether the actions of the appellant, who stole money from the victim after the victim withdrew it from an ATM, constituted "actual violence" sufficient to amount to robbery under the Crimes Act 1900 (Qld). Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the trial judge should have considered a non-custodial sentence given the circumstances of the case.

The court was required to determine if the appellant's struggle to free himself from the victim's grasp constituted "actual violence" as required by the statute. This involved interpreting the phrase "actual violence" and determining if it encompassed the physical struggle that occurred. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in imposing a custodial sentence and whether the circumstances warranted a non-custodial sentence.

The court found that the appellant's struggle to escape from the victim's grasp did indeed constitute "actual violence" as it involved a physical altercation. The struggle was deemed sufficient to support the robbery conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing a custodial sentence, considering the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing decision.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The High Court upheld the conviction for robbery and the four-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.