R v Hagen

Case [2022] ACTSC 274

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hagen

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 274

Hearing Date:

30 September 2022

DecisionDate:

11 October 2022

Before:

Kennett J

Decision:

See [45]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where submitted that the offender has limited intellectual functioning – consideration of the Verdins principles – where offender suffered significant disadvantage in his upbringing

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 86

Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) s 35
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148; 3 ACTLR 210
Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9
R v Knight [2021] ACTSC 165
R v Mena [2018] ACTSC 92
R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268
R v Newman [2004] NSWCCA 102; 145 A Crim R 361
R v Parker [2021] ACTSC 57
R v Pikula [2022] ACTSC 219
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

Wronski v Rau [2012] ACTSC 87

Parties:

The Queen ( Crown)

Bailey Hagen ( Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

B Morrisroe ( Crown)

S Robinson ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Fortify Legal ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 253 of 2021

SCC 254 of 2021

KENNETT J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Bailey Hagen, has pleaded guilty to two offences committed in the early hours of 31 July 2021.  They are:

(a) Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of 200 penalty units, 20 years’ imprisonment, or both.

(b) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

  1. Also before me is a charge of minor theft by joint commission in respect of which the Crown offered no evidence. I will dismiss this charge. 

Facts

  1. The facts are set out in an agreed statement of facts before the Court.

  1. The offender attended the home of a Ms Samantha Chatfield along with his mother (Trinity Hagen), a relative who is under 18 and two other persons, Mikaela Engeler and Rebecca Eade.

  1. Ms Engeler was the partner of the offender’s older brother Jordan, who at this time was detained in the AMC.

  1. Jordan had previously been in a relationship with Ms Chatfield. A purpose of the visit to Ms Chatfield’s residence was apparently to retrieve some belongings of Jordan’s.

  1. Ms Chatfield was at home with two other persons, one of whom was her brother. Mr Hagen and his co-offenders arrived around 2.00am. They knocked on the door. One of the people in the dwelling opened the front door, whereupon…

Continue reading R v Hagen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hagen [2022] ACTSC 274
Case
[2022] ACTSC 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hagen involved the respondent, Hagen, who was facing charges relating to aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for Hagen, taking into account his personal circumstances. Hagen's defense argued that he had limited intellectual functioning and had faced significant disadvantages during his upbringing, which they claimed should be considered in the sentencing process.

The court was required to address several legal issues, primarily centred on the principles established in Verdins v R, which provide guidelines for sentencing offenders with intellectual impairments and those who have experienced significant disadvantage in their upbringing. The court needed to determine whether Hagen's intellectual functioning and upbringing were such that they warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. This involved a detailed analysis of Hagen's background, his intellectual capacity, and the impact these factors had on his offending behaviour.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence presented regarding Hagen's intellectual functioning and his disadvantaged upbringing. The court acknowledged the importance of these factors in understanding Hagen's offending behaviour and in determining an appropriate sentence. However, the court also had to balance these considerations against the seriousness of the offences committed and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. Ultimately, the court determined that while Hagen's circumstances were mitigating, they did not warrant a significant departure from the principles of just punishment. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences while also taking into account Hagen's personal circumstances.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [45], outlining the specific sentence imposed on Hagen. The court's decision underscored the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing, where both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender are carefully weighed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [45]

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.