Hudson v The Queen

[2020] ACTCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Hudson v The Queen
Citation:	[2020] ACTCA 46
Hearing Date:	5 August 2020
DecisionDate:	11 September 2020
Before:	Elkaim, Mossop and Abraham JJ
Decision:	See [60]
Catchwords:	APPEAL – SENTENCE – Manifest Excess – Sentencing for multiple offences – Commonwealth and Territory offences – prospects of rehabilitation – offences committed while in custody – appeal allowed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 19AC Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 72 Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.17(1)
Cases Cited:	Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 Hancock v R [2012] NSWCCA 200 Hawker v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 40 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 The Queenv Potts [2020] ACTCA 12
Parties:	Aaron Raymond Hudson (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel A Hudson (Appellant) K McCann (Respondent)
Solicitors In person (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 10 of 2020
Decision under appeal:	Court:   Before: Date of Decision: Case Title: Citation:	Supreme Court of the ACT Murrell CJ 2 May 2019 R v Hudson [2019] ACTSC 110

THE COURT:

1. On 2 May 2019 Murrell CJ sentenced the appellant to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of 33 months (R v Hudson [2019] ACTSC 110).

1. The appellant was unhappy with his sentence and filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 March 2020. Although he was represented at the sentencing hearing, he appeared for himself in the appeal.

1. Presumably because he is unfamiliar with the requirements of an appeal, the appellant filed no written submissions. In the Notice of Appeal however he says the following:

The sentence is excessive and unjust.

Chief Justice Murrell did not take the programs and prospects of rehabilitation into consideration.

1. The appellant’s concise statement of his reasons for the appeal are classically a complaint of a sentence which is manifestly excessive.

1. The Crown approached the appeal on the same basis and filed written submissions on 7 July 2020 defending the sentences imposed.

1. Thus far the appellant was facing the task of demonstrating the sentences were manifestly excessive. However, the respondent, in supplementary submissions dated 3 August 2020, pointed out two errors which it had identified in the reasons for sentence. They are:

(a)Two of the offences were contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). Because they were Commonwealth offences, and because the aggregate sentences for these offences was less than three years, it was not open to her Honour to set a single nonparole period applicable to all of the offences encompassing both the Commonwealth and Territory offences. Section 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) had not been complied with in relation to the Commonwealth offences.

(b)Six of the Territory offences (two indictable and four summary) were committed while the appellant was in custody. This should have generated the…