R v Earnshaw and Hartcher - [1993] QCA 519

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 519
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane
[R -v- Earnshaw & Hartcher]	No. C.A. 188 of 1993

No. C.A. 195 of 1993

T H E Q U E E N

PHILLIP ANDREW EARNSHAW

MICHAEL JOHN HARTCHER

(Applicants)
The President
Mr. Justice Pincus
Mr. Justice Moynihan

Judgment delivered 14/12/1993

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY PINCUS JA & MOYNIHAN J

SEPARATE DISSENTING REASONS OF THE PRESIDENT

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - whether manifestly excessive - series of offences - Burglary - UUMV - factors taken into consideration when sentencing
Counsel:	M Byrne for the Crown P Brown for the applicant Earnshaw K Wenck for the applicant Hartcher
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid Office for the applicant Earnshaw Legal Aid Office for the applicant Hartcher
Date(s) of
Hearing:	9 August, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 188 of 1993 C.A. No. 195 of 1993

Before

The President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Moynihan

[R. v. Earnshaw and Hartcher]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N
v.
PHILLIP ANDREW EARNSHAW
and MICHAEL JOHN HARTCHER

(Applicants)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE PRESIDENT

Judgment delivered 14/12/93
The applicants have applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District court on 21 May 1993 after each pleaded guilty that day to a number of offences which took place between 12 June and 27 October 1992.
Hartcher, who committed fewer offences, pleaded guilty to 3 counts of burglary, 1 count of wilful damage, 14 counts of stealing and 2 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, one with a circumstance of aggravation. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years on the burglary charges and two years' imprisonment on the remainder of the charges, to be served concurrently, with a recommendation that he be considered for parole after 18 months.
Earnshaw pleaded guilty to the same charges plus an additional charge of unlawful use with a circumstance of aggravation, a charge of attempted unlawful use, a charge of housebreaking and a charge of breaking and entering with intent.

In addition, he had a further 9 offences of dishonesty, including breaking and entering, stealing and unlawful use, taken into account pursuant to s.189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years on the burglary and housebreaking charges and 2 years imprisonment

on the other charges, to be served concurrently , with no

recommendation with respect to early parole.
As was reflected in the sentences, the most serious offences were the burglaries and, in Earnshaw's case, the housebreaking, which involved the theft of $7,000.00. The burglaries and associated offences related to two occasions on which a woman's home was broken into on the same night; $34,000.00 in cash and property worth $26,000.00 were taken and obscenities were sprayed throughout the house.
Earnshaw, who was born on 16 October 1969, was almost 23…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Earnshaw and Hartcher and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] QCA 519
Decision Date: 14/12/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Earnshaw and Hartcher, the defendants were convicted of a series of burglaries and faced sentencing in the higher court. The nature of the dispute centred around whether the sentences imposed by the lower court were excessively harsh given the circumstances of the case. The court was tasked with determining if the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether all relevant factors were properly considered in sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences handed down by the lower court were manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the totality of the offences committed, the circumstances surrounding each offence, and the principles of sentencing under the relevant legislation. The court also had to assess whether the sentencing judge took into account all the mitigating and aggravating factors that were properly before him.

The court found that while the series of burglaries warranted significant punishment, the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly excessive. It was determined that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider all mitigating factors and did not sufficiently weigh the totality of the circumstances. As a result, the court ordered a re-sentencing, directing the lower court to re-evaluate the sentences in light of all relevant factors and principles of sentencing.

In conclusion, the court's decision underscored the importance of a thorough consideration of all mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. The final orders of the court mandated a re-sentencing process, ensuring that the defendants received sentences that were proportionate to their crimes and that all relevant factors were duly considered.

Orders