R v Hadden

[1996] QCA 307

[1996] QCA 307

COURT OF APPEAL
DERRINGTON J
MACKENZIE J

WHITE J

CA No 198 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

WARREN CLYDE HADDEN Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 31/07/96
310796 D.1 T4/KE9 M/T COA174/96
DERRINGTON J: The applicant for leave to appeal was convicted
of two counts of stealing, one count of entering a dwelling
house with intent, two counts of receiving, two counts of false
pretences and one count of housebreaking.

The sentences that were imposed were one year imprisonment in respect of each of the stealing counts, three years imprisonment in respect of the entry into a dwelling house with intent, one year imprisonment in respect of each of the counts of receiving, one year imprisonment in respect of each of the counts of false pretences, and four years imprisonment in respect of the count of housebreaking.

Although the application for leave to appeal relates to all of the sentences, learned counsel did not pursue argument in relation to any of the sentences other than that of four years on the housebreaking count.

The notice of appeal nominated two grounds; one that the sentence was manifestly excessive; and, secondly, on the ground of parity of sentence.

Learned counsel for the applicant readily conceded, and rightly so in my view, that it was not a suitable case in which to argue parity because of the extremely significant and manifest differences between the case of the applicant and that of his co-offender. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary to elaborate further on that issue.

310796 D.1 T4/KE9 M/T COA174/96
In respect of the ground that the sentence was manifestly
excessive, after having regard to the sentences that were
imposed in the authorities that have been referred to the Court
by way of comparative sentences, I am of the view that the
sentence of four years imprisonment, in this case, is not
manifestly excessive in itself - particularly having regard to
the antecedents of the applicant and the lifestyle that he was
living and the harm that he was doing to those people whom he
injured by his activities.

Nevertheless, it is at the higher end of the range of suitable sentences in this set of circumstances, having regard to the fact that it was not an organised type of offence involving organised and constant housebreaking. That does not mean to say that it was extraordinary, in the sense that the applicant appears to have led a lifestyle in which this type of conduct was far from unknown.

However, because of my observation that, in the circumstances, the sentence was at the higher end of the scale within the permitted range of sentences, it would appear that insufficient attention has been paid, by the learned sentencing Judge, to the applicant's timely plea of guilty and the extent of his co- operation with the police, although that was somewhat belated.

For these reasons, I would vary the sentence by adding a recommendation that he be considered for parole after 18 months in respect of the sentence of four years for housebreaking. Otherwise, I would refuse leave to appeal.

310796 D.1 T4/KE9 M/T COA174/96

MACKENZIE J: I agree.

WHITE J: I agree.

DERRINGTON J: The order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal is granted in respect of the count of housebreaking. The sentence imposed below is varied by adding a recommendation that the applicant be considered for parole after 18 months. Otherwise, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

-----