CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Sentence of life imprisonment – Attempted murder – Intentionally causing serious injury – Prohibited person using unregistered firearm – Whether non-parole period of 35 years manifestly excessive – Whether comparable ‘worst’ cases can be used to demonstrate manifest excess – Permissible use of comparable cases
Crown appeal – Attempted murder – Whether principle of totality can justify moderation of other individual sentences when life imprisonment is imposed – Test for Crown appeals where specific error is demonstrated – 12 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder manifestly inadequate – Victim a good Samaritan – Whether five years’ imprisonment for using an unregistered firearm while being a prohibited person manifestly inadequate – Crown appeal allowed
---
Appearances:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant/Respondent
Mr O P Holdenson QC with Mr T Kassimatis
Theo Magazis & Assoc.
For the Crown
Mr J D McArdle QC
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
ASHLEY JA:
REDLICH JA: HARPER JA:
Having entered a plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court to five years imprisonment on one count of being a prohibited person using an unregistered firearm (count 1); to eight years’ imprisonment on one count of intentionally causing serious injury (count 2); to life imprisonment on one count of murder (count 3) and to twelve years’ imprisonment on each of two counts of attempted murder (counts 4 and 5). The sentencing judge declared the total effective sentence to be life imprisonment, and fixed a non-parole period of 35 years’ imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced as a serious violent offender in respect of counts 2, 4 and 5. His Honour also declared that had the applicant not pleaded guilty, he would have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment and would not have fixed a non-parole period.[1]
The applicant has appealed against the non-parole period. The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against the sentences imposed on the count of being a prohibited person using a registered firearm and the counts of attempted murder.
The circumstances of the offending
The full circumstances of the applicant’s offending are set out in the learned sentencing judge’s remarks.[2] It is sufficient to briefly summarise those circumstances.
Prohibited person using unregistered firearm – Count 1
The conduct relating to count 1 occurred in the early hours of Tuesday, 12 June 2007, six days before the conduct the subject of counts 2 to 5. Whilst driving towards the Bolte Bridge in Kensington,…
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 Hudson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hudson v The Queen [2010] VSCA 332
Case
[2010] VSCA 332
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Hudson v The Queen, the appellant, Mr Hudson, was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and using an unregistered firearm while being a prohibited person. The appeal to the High Court focused on the sentences imposed by the lower courts. Mr Hudson was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, 12 years for attempted murder, and five years for using an unregistered firearm. The Crown appealed, arguing the sentences for attempted murder and firearm use were manifestly inadequate. The Court was tasked with determining whether the non-parole period of 35 years for murder was manifestly excessive and whether the use of comparable 'worst' cases could demonstrate manifest excess. Additionally, the Court examined whether the principle of totality could justify the moderation of other sentences when life imprisonment was imposed and the appropriate test for Crown appeals where a specific error is demonstrated.
The central legal issues before the Court involved the assessment of the sentences imposed on Mr Hudson. The Court had to determine whether the non-parole period for the murder sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the principle of totality and the use of comparable cases. The Court also considered whether the sentences for attempted murder and the use of an unregistered firearm were manifestly inadequate, especially given the nature of the crimes and the impact on the victims. The Court had to balance the principles of sentencing and proportionality while ensuring the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences committed.
The Court, in its judgement, held that the non-parole period of 35 years for the murder sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the heinous nature of the crime and the circumstances. Regarding the sentences for attempted murder and firearm use, the Court found them manifestly inadequate. It highlighted that the attempted murder victim was a good Samaritan, and the firearm use offence involved a prohibited person using an unregistered firearm. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to ensure sentences reflected the seriousness of the crimes. The Crown appeal was allowed, and the sentences for attempted murder and firearm use were increased to reflect the gravity of the offences.
The final orders of the Court were that the sentences for attempted murder and using an unregistered firearm were increased to appropriate terms that reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court did not alter the sentence for murder, maintaining the non-parole period of 35 years. The increased sentences for attempted murder and firearm use were to be served concurrently with the life sentence for murder, ensuring the overall sentence remained proportionate and just.