R v HAC

[2006] QCA 460

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HAC [2006] QCA 460

PARTIES:

R
v
HAC
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 17 of 2006
DC No 645 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2006

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed
2. The appeal against sentence is allowed
3. The sentence imposed for torture is varied by setting aside the 10 years imprisonment and ordering instead that the applicant be sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment
4. The serious violent offender declaration and the declaration that 451 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 14 September 2004 until 9 December 2005 is time already served, will stand

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – sentence required reconsideration – sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for torture, five years for rape and two years for assault – whether torture sentence is manifestly excessive

R v B; ex part A-G [2000] QCA 110; CA No 379 of 1999, 4 April 2000, considered

R v Rankmore; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2002] QCA 492; CA Nos 223 of 2002, 285 of 2002, 288 of 2002, 15 November 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

G Long for the applicant/appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. :WILLIAMS JA  I agree with the sentence proposed by Jerrard JA in his reasons, and I also agree with his reasoning.

1. JERRARD JA: On 11 August 2006 this Court dismissed an appeal by Mr HAC against his conviction for torture, and requested further submissions on an application for leave to appeal against his sentence.  That was done because the conviction was upheld on the ground that what Mr HAC admitted doing to his former wife, and what his daughters described him doing to his former wife, understood in light of the intention he admitted, constituted an offence of torture on which the jury could properly convict him.  That offence constituted by those matters admitted by Mr HAC or witnessed by his daughters was a little less horrific than the totality of the circumstances of the offence of torture described by the victim, Mr HAC’s wife.  The reasons for judgment in the conviction appeal explain why the conviction was upheld on the more limited basis.  The sentence originally imposed, 10 years imprisonment, therefore needs reconsideration, and Mr HAC has applied for leave to appeal the sentences imposed on him, of 10 years for torture, five years for rape, and two years for assault occasioning bodily harm.  No argument…