Legal Research
Cases
Hopgood v R

Hopgood v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 246 18 October 2019

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Breach of Contract

Sexual Intercourse without Consent

Judicial Review

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hopgood v R [2019] NSWCCA 246
Hearing dates: 19 August 2019
Date of orders: 18 October 2019
Decision date: 18 October 2019
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Price J at [79]
Lonergan J at [80]
Decision:
Application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal – Judge alone trial – break and enter dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence – sexual intercourse without consent – whether trial Judge failed to give reasons – whether reasons expressed contradictory explanations – whether verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – whether verdicts entered were inconsistent where finding of guilt entered on statutory alternative – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – no merit to any ground of appeal – application refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: AK v The Queen (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 12
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 38; [2016] HCA 35
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Troy Hopgood (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

Mr B Hatfield (Respondent)
Applicant (In Person)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/304943
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

30 June 2017 (Conviction)
4 August 2017 (Sentence)

Before:

His Honour Acting Judge Black QC

File Number(s):

2016/304943

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Troy Hopgood, seeks leave to appeal following a trial before his Honour Acting Judge Black QC at the Lismore District Court in 2017 at which he was convicted of offences of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence under s.112(2) Crimes Act 1900 and having sexual intercourse without consent under s.61I(1) Crimes Act 1900.

The Applicant’s Trial

The Applicant was tried before his Honour Acting Judge Black QC at a Judge-alone trial which commenced on 20 June 2017 with verdicts being returned on 30 June 2017.
The Applicant had applied to be tried by Judge alone and the Crown consented to that application.
The counts in the indictment and verdicts were as follows:

Count 1 - Between 18 and 27 August 2016 at Tweed Heads, the Applicant did take and drive the conveyance of the complainant without her consent contrary to s.154A(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 - verdict of not guilty.

Count 2 - On 2 October 2016 at Tweed Heads, the Applicant did break and enter the dwelling house of the complainant and commit a serious indictable offence, larceny, in circumstances of aggravation, namely knowing that a person…

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 Hopgood v R

Details

AGLC: Hopgood v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 246
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 246
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hopgood v R, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing various grounds of appeal against his conviction for break and enter dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence, specifically sexual intercourse without consent. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant sought an extension of time to lodge his notice of appeal and subsequently appealed against his conviction and sentence. The legal issues at hand included whether the trial judge failed to give reasons, whether the reasons provided were contradictory, whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, whether the verdicts were inconsistent, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered these issues and ultimately determined that there was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court examined each of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The court found that the trial judge had indeed given reasons for the verdicts, which were not contradictory. The court also determined that the verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence presented during the trial. Furthermore, the court found no inconsistency in the verdicts, as the finding of guilt was based on a statutory alternative. Finally, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the appropriate range. Given these findings, the court concluded that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal.

The reasoning of the High Court was based on a thorough examination of the trial judge's reasons, the evidence presented at trial, and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the trial judge had provided sufficient reasons for the verdicts and that these reasons were not contradictory. The court also considered the evidence presented at trial and determined that the verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court further found no inconsistency in the verdicts, as the finding of guilt was based on a statutory alternative. Finally, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the appropriate range. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for an extension of time.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for an extension of time. The court found that there was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and that the trial judge had provided sufficient reasons for the verdicts, which were not contradictory. The court also determined that the verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence, that there was no inconsistency in the verdicts, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused.

Orders