HOOPER -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 179
| (2003) 27 WAR 264 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 179 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 12/08/2003 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:38/2003 | 15 JULY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY ACJ STEYTLER J ROBERTS-SMITH J | 15/07/03 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal against sentence granted, Appeal allowed, Sentence quashed, Sentence of 2 years imprisonment substituted | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MURRAY REO HOOPER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm Sentence of imprisonment for 3 years Applicant acquitted of manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm in respect of same incident Convicted after trial Mitigatory effect of indication that applicant would plead guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm Criminal law Sentence Assault occasioning bodily harm Failure to specify the bodily harm Victim impact statements Relatives of deceased Distress and other effects of death on them Whether admissible |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 1(1) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 7(2)(a), s 8(2), s 13, s 24, s 25, s 26 |
Case References: | Attorney-General's reference under s 693A of the Criminal Code (2002) 26 WAR 197 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Casserley v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990164; 31 March 1999 Garlett v Dillon, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960353; 5 July 1996 Hinchcliffe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 15 Hooper (2000) 116 A Crim R 510 Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 Medcraft (1992) 60 A Crim R 181 Mitchell (1998) 104 A Crim R 523 Mitchell v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 257 R v Brand, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980590; 9 October 1998 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Dowlan [1998] 1 VR 123 Robertson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990145; 23 March 1999 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1 Tan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960188; 1 April 1996 Teremoana v The Queen (1990) 54 SASR 30 Toomath v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990107; 9 February 1999 R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278 R v Osip (2000) 116 A Crim R 578 Williams v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930255; 5 May 1993 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HOOPER -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 179 CORAM : MURRAY ACJ
- STEYTLER J
ROBERTS-SMITH J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm - Sentence of imprisonment for 3 years - Applicant acquitted of manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm in respect of same incident - Convicted after trial - Mitigatory effect of…
Continue reading Hooper v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hooper v The Queen [2003] WASCA 179
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Hooper v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to imprisonment for three years. The appellant was acquitted of manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm in relation to the same incident. The appellant had indicated that they would plead guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm, which had a mitigating effect on the sentence. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge had failed to specify the bodily harm caused by the appellant, and that the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were inadmissible. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and made a decision on the legal issues presented.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had failed to specify the bodily harm caused by the appellant, and whether the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible. The court found that the trial judge had not specified the bodily harm caused by the appellant, and that this was an error of law. The court also found that the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible, as they were relevant to the sentence that should be imposed on the appellant. The court held that the trial judge had erred in failing to take into account the effect of the death on the deceased's relatives, and that this was a significant error that affected the sentence imposed on the appellant.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court held that the error in failing to specify the bodily harm caused by the appellant was significant, and that it had affected the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court also held that the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible, and that the trial judge had failed to take into account the effect of the death on the deceased's relatives. The court substituted a sentence of two years imprisonment for the appellant. The court found that this was an appropriate sentence, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, including the mitigating effect of the appellant's indication that they would plead guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had failed to specify the bodily harm caused by the appellant, and whether the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible. The court found that the trial judge had not specified the bodily harm caused by the appellant, and that this was an error of law. The court also found that the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible, as they were relevant to the sentence that should be imposed on the appellant. The court held that the trial judge had erred in failing to take into account the effect of the death on the deceased's relatives, and that this was a significant error that affected the sentence imposed on the appellant.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court held that the error in failing to specify the bodily harm caused by the appellant was significant, and that it had affected the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court also held that the victim impact statements from the deceased's relatives were admissible, and that the trial judge had failed to take into account the effect of the death on the deceased's relatives. The court substituted a sentence of two years imprisonment for the appellant. The court found that this was an appropriate sentence, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, including the mitigating effect of the appellant's indication that they would plead guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal against sentence granted, Appeal allowed, Sentence quashed, Sentence of 2 years imprisonment substituted
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.