R v Hague - [2011] VSC 371

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2010 0091

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

KARL MICHAEL HAGUE

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June, 5 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hague
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 371

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two counts of reckless conduct endangering life and one count of possession of unregistered hand gun – Guilty plea - Discharge of two pistol shots in a public street – Elevated anxiety due to long standing feud with victim – Total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P Rose SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W Toohey	Grigor Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Karl Michael Hague, on 29 September 2009 you fired shots from a hand gun at two men, Michael Beyer and Adrian Downs, outside a pizza shop in Detroit Crescent, Corio, a suburb of Geelong.

You were initially charged with the attempted murder of Michael Beyer, with reckless conduct endangering life, and with other offences.

On the day fixed for commencement of your trial, the prosecution filed over a fresh presentment containing two charges of reckless conduct endangering life, one in relation to Michael Beyer and one in relation to Adrian Downs, and one charge of possession of an unregistered hand gun. You were arraigned and pleaded guilty to those three charges.

The maximum penalty for reckless conduct endangering life is 10 years’ imprisonment and for possession of an unregistered hand gun is, for a first offence, 600 penalty units or 7 years’ imprisonment.

The circumstances of the offences were as follows.

At approximately 7.20 pm on 29 September 2009, Michael Beyer went to the Corio Pizza Shop in Detroit Crescent, Corio. He was driven there by his friend, Adrian Downs.

Mr Downs parked his white ute in the angle parking outside the shop. Mr Beyer intended to enter the shop alone to order pizzas whilst Mr Downs waited in his car.

As Mr Beyer entered the shop he noticed you standing outside talking on your mobile phone. You were at the pizza shop with two friends. You and Mr Beyer, and your respective families, have known each other for a long period of time. There is a history of bad blood. In 1996 you had been charged with raping Mr Beyer’s sister. On 3 March 1997 at the County Court in Geelong you had been acquitted of that charge.

While you spoke on your phone, Mr Beyer walked up to you and punched you in the face. The punch caused you to fall to the ground. Mr Downs heard a thump and got out of his vehicle to see what had happened. One of your friends came out of the shop and in response to a question from him…

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 [2011] VSC 371
Case: [2011] VSC 371
Decision Date: 10 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Hague, was charged with two counts of reckless conduct endangering life and one count of possession of an unregistered hand gun. The charges arose from the discharge of two pistol shots in a public street. Hague pleaded guilty to all charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had no prior convictions and who had acted in the heat of the moment due to an elevated state of anxiety resulting from a long-standing feud with the victim.

The court identified the relevant legal principles for sentencing in cases involving reckless conduct endangering life. The court noted the need to consider the severity of the offences, the respondent's culpability, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. The court also considered mitigating factors, including the respondent's otherwise good character, his guilty plea, and his elevated state of anxiety at the time of the offence. The court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

The court emphasised the gravity of the respondent's conduct, noting that the discharge of a firearm in a public place is inherently dangerous and has the potential to cause serious harm or death. The court also noted the importance of holding the respondent accountable for his actions and sending a message of deterrence to others who might be tempted to engage in similar conduct. The court considered the mitigating factors in arriving at the final sentence, but ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment.

The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a total effective sentence of 4 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. The respondent was also ordered to pay a fine of $2,000 and to forfeit the unregistered hand gun. The court noted that the sentence was not intended to be punitive, but rather to hold the respondent accountable for his actions and to promote public safety by removing him from society for a period of time.

Orders