Legal Research
Cases
Hunter v The Queen

Hunter v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 385 19 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0173

STEVEN JAMES HUNTER	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	21 November 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	19 December 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 385
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Hunter [2013] VSC 440 (Bell J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder – Life imprisonment without parole – Whether open to sentencing judge to conclude that inappropriate to fix non-parole period – Nature of the offence – Past history of the offender – Murder conviction 26 years earlier – Similar aggravating circumstances – Concealment and destruction of body – Violent offending in breach of parole – Whether relevant to consider future risk of offending – No sentencing error – Not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 11(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T R Marsh with Mr P J Smallwood	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr P B Kidd SC with Mr B Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
COGHLAN JA:

Steven Hunter pleaded guilty to one charge of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence. For reasons which follow, we would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

The grant of leave to appeal reflects our view that the challenge to the sentence was properly brought. Life imprisonment without parole is the most severe sentence which can be imposed on a person. As explained below, Parliament has defined quite strictly the conditions which govern the decision of a sentencing judge not to fix a non-parole period. That there was a proper basis for this application is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that the Court is divided as to the outcome.

The application for leave to appeal was funded by Victoria Legal Aid (‘VLA’). The applicant was very capably represented by a senior public defender employed by VLA, who had also represented him on the plea before the sentencing judge.

The fact that the applicant pleaded guilty to a horrific murder does not mean that he forfeited the right to challenge the lawfulness of the sentence imposed on him. Our system of law guarantees that right to every person. For those who are unable to pay for their own legal representation, VLA performs a vital function in supporting the rule of law.

The decision not to fix a non-parole period

Both grounds of appeal were directed to the decision of the sentencing judge not to fix a non-parole period. The terms of s 11(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) governed the making of that decision. The subsection provides as follows:

(1)If a court sentences an offender to be imprisoned in respect of an offence for—
(a) the term of his or her natural life; or
(b) a term of 2 years or more—
the court must, as part of…

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 Hunter v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hunter v The Queen [2013] VSCA 385
Case: [2013] VSCA 385
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter was convicted of murdering his partner and appealed against his sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge could conclude that it was inappropriate to fix a non-parole period, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the offender's past history, and whether the future risk of offending was relevant.

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that it was inappropriate to fix a non-parole period, given the nature of the offence and the offender's past history. The offender had previously been convicted of murder 26 years earlier, and had committed similar violent offences in breach of parole. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the offender had shown no remorse for his actions and posed a continuing risk to the community. The court also noted that the offender's past history was relevant to the assessment of his future risk of offending.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors and had not erred in law. The sentence was considered to be appropriate, taking into account the nature of the offence, the offender's past history, and the risk he posed to the community. The court noted that the offender's previous convictions and violent offending in breach of parole were relevant to the assessment of his future risk of offending, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the original sentence of life imprisonment without parole be upheld. The court also noted that the offender's past history and violent offending in breach of parole were relevant to the assessment of his future risk of offending, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the offender's past history and the risk they pose to the community.

Orders