R v Haddou

Case [2019] QDC 152

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Haddou [2019] QDC 152

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

ALLERICK GABRIEL NICHOLAS HADDOU
(Appellant)

FILE NO/S:

147/2018

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2019

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.          I allow the appeal.

2.          I set aside the sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court made on the 5th of April 2017.

3.          The defendant have leaved to withdraw the plea of guilty in respect of the charge.

4.          The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court Cairns’ Registry for arraignment and rehearing before a different Magistrate according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - mode of hearing of appeal – uncertainty of factual basis for plea and sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – whether plea capable of supporting re-sentence in absence of certainty of facts.

Legislation
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s222, 223

Cases
AB v R (1999) 198 CLR 111.
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 290 ALR 699
Dwyer v Calco Timbers (2008) 234 CLR 124
Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 60
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255
Meissner v R (1994-95) 184 CLR 132
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121

COUNSEL:

P. Feeney (applicant)

E. Coker (respondent)

SOLICITORS:

Department of Police Prosecutions

Carman and Associates

  1. Acting upon a plea of guilty as apprehended by the magistrate, the appellant was sentenced on the 5th of April 2017 in respect of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, to a fine of $750, part of which was identified as a moiety of $500 payable to the complainant with no conviction being recorded.

  1. On 14 February 2019 I granted leave for the defendant to appeal against the sentence, notwithstanding some significant delay between that sentence and when proceedings commenced in this Court by way of a notice of appeal on 24 August 2018. 

  1. I have been assisted in the proceedings by outlines of arguments, supplemented by further oral submissions on two separate occasions. 

  1. On the first occasion, the matter was adjourned after determining and granting leave to appeal with a view to permitting the appellant to consider his position and deal with any amended grounds of appeal.  It is on that basis that I determine the matter.

Background

  1. The defendant’s proceeding was first before the Magistrates Court in Cairns on 21 March 2017.  On that date, it appears that the defendant was not present…

Continue reading R v Haddou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Haddou [2019] QDC 152
Case
[2019] QDC 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haddou involved an appeal by the defendant against a sentence and conviction imposed by the Magistrates Court. The defendant was convicted and sentenced for an offence under the Criminal Code, and subsequently sought to appeal the sentence, arguing it was excessive and that there was uncertainty over the factual basis of the plea. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the appeal being conducted under the provisions of the Justices Act 1886.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the appropriate mode of hearing the appeal and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court also had to consider whether the plea of guilty was capable of supporting a re-sentencing in the absence of certainty about the factual basis. Given the uncertainty surrounding the factual basis of the plea and sentence, the court needed to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the plea could support a re-sentencing.

In resolving these issues, the court held that the appeal should be heard de novo, meaning a fresh hearing, due to the uncertainty over the factual basis for the plea and the sentence. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was insufficient information to determine the factual basis for the plea. The court emphasised that where there is significant uncertainty about the facts, a re-sentencing could not be properly conducted without a full hearing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court were set aside, and the defendant was granted leave to withdraw the plea of guilty. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-arraignment and rehearing before a different magistrate.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court, grant the defendant leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, and remit the proceeding to the Magistrates Court for re-arraignment and rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I allow the appeal.

2. I set aside the sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court made on the 5th of April 2017.

3. The defendant have leaved to withdraw the plea of guilty in respect of the charge.

4. The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court Cairns’ Registry for arraignment and rehearing before a different Magistrate according to law.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.