R v Hague - [2018] VSC 323

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0163

THE QUEEN
v
KARL MICHAEL HAGUE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 June 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hague
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 323

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Sentence – Accused found guilty by jury – Issue at trial was identity – Deceased stabbed to death – Offence committed in shopping centre – Motive of retribution – Delay, effect of – General and specific deterrence – Prior criminal history – Subsequent offending and rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC Ms Sally Flynn QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms F Gerry QC Dr T Alexander	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

Karl Michael Hague, on 23 April 2018 you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Ricky Thomas Balcombe following a trial which begun on 1 March 2018. That offence was committed by you on 5 May 1995. On Wednesday 2 May 2018 I heard submissions on your behalf, submissions on behalf of the prosecution and received victim impact statements. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[1]
[1] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 3.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for the charge of the murder of Ricky Balcombe.

Circumstances of offending

The murder of Ricky Balcombe occurred shortly after 3.20pm on the afternoon of Friday 5 May 1995. Balcombe, who was then aged 16, died as a result of being stabbed multiple times by you. The incident occurred in the corridor leading to the Geelong Mall in Little Malop Street, Geelong. Balcombe was later transported by ambulance to Geelong Hospital but was pronounced dead at 4.14pm that day.

At the time of the offence you were 21 years of age, having been born on 27 June 1973.

As the prosecution put its case, which the jury can be taken to have accepted, relevant events began two weeks earlier at about 10.30pm on the night of Friday 21 April 1995. At that time, Ricky Balcombe and his friend Nick Munn, who were both members of the street gang known as the ‘Mainstream Criminals’, were walking in Malop Street, Geelong when approached by a group of people, including you. There is no evidence to indicate that you were a member of any street gang.

There was a verbal altercation, following which you pursued Ricky Balcombe and having caught him, attacked him causing injuries to his face and a cut to his leg. The particular circumstances of this incident were described by your friend Nathan O’Neil during the course of his evidence before the jury. Other than being relevant to evidence of motive and part of the context for what later occurred, I make it clear that this incident and your attack on Balcombe plays no other part in the sentence which I will…

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.

Continue reading R v Hague

Details

AGLC: R v Hague [2018] VSC 323
Case: [2018] VSC 323
Decision Date: 15 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hague involved the appellant, who had been found guilty by a jury of murdering a man by stabbing him in a shopping centre. The deceased's identity was a key issue at trial, and the motive behind the offence was retribution. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, contending that it was excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's background.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors. The court needed to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence, the appellant's prior criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive because it did not sufficiently account for the delay between the offence and the trial, and the fact that he had shown remorse and made efforts to rehabilitate himself since the offence. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history and had shown a pattern of violent offending. The delay between the offence and the trial did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence, and the appellant's subsequent offending and lack of genuine rehabilitation efforts were relevant factors to consider. The court also emphasised the importance of general and specific deterrence in sentencing, and noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for a murder offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and that the sentence imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The appellant was therefore required to serve the sentence imposed, which was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years.

Orders