R v Hammond - [1996] QCA 508

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 508
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 445 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Hammond]

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW KENNETH HAMMOND

Applicant

Thomas J Dowsett J White J

Judgment delivered 10/12/96
Judgment of the Court

LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW FOR EACH ARMED ROBBERY SET ASIDE. IN LIEU, SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE AFTER SERVING TWO YEARS. OTHER SENTENCES NOT DISTURBED.

CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - armed robbery, attempted armed robbery and unlawful use of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation - need for deterrence - relevance of heroin addiction - factors in mitigation - comparative sentences - whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Counsel:	Mr T Martin SC for the applicant Mr D Bullock for the respondent
Solicitors:	Boe and Callaghan for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 15 November 1996

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 10/12/96

The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment presented to the District Court on 4 September 1996. Sentence was imposed on 17 September 1996.

The applicant pleaded guilty to three charges of armed robbery, one charge of attempted armed robbery, and two charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation.

A term of imprisonment of 7 years was imposed in respect of each offence of armed robbery, 3 years' imprisonment in respect of the attempted armed robbery and 2 years' imprisonment for each offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle all to be served concurrently. The learned sentencing judge recommended that the applicant be considered for parole after serving 2 years and 9 months of his sentence. Thirty-four days had been spent in pre-sentence custody which was declared to be time already served under the sentences.

The applicant was 25 years of age at the time of committing the offences and had a very minor previous charge of unlawful possession of marijuana and a pipe in April 1994 for which he was fined and no conviction recorded.

•Circumstances of the offences	............2
•Personal circumstances	............ ........... 3
•Submissions for applicant	............ ........... 5
•Relevance of heroin addiction	............6
•Comparison with other cases	............ ........... +9
•Review	............ ............ ............ ........... 27
•Conclusion	............ ............ ............ ........... 28

Circumstances of the offences

On Sunday 25 February 1996 the applicant took a Holden Commodore sedan from outside the owner's address in Sunnybank Hills. The applicant drove it to a service station at Sunnybank and entered the service station about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. He had a stocking over his head and was armed with a steering wheel lock. He approached the console operator and demanded cash. He smashed the steering wheel lock onto the counter and the operator handed over $211.20. The applicant ran from the service station and escaped in the car.

About 25 minutes later he went to another service station in Sunnybank with…

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 Hammond

Details

AGLC: R v Hammond [1996] QCA 508
Case: [1996] QCA 508
Decision Date: 10/12/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hammond involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Hammond, who was convicted of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The sentence was considered in the context of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account various factors such as the need for deterrence, the respondent's heroin addiction, and other mitigating circumstances.

The court was required to decide if the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the crimes committed and the respondent's personal circumstances. This involved balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors presented. The court examined whether Hammond's heroin addiction should be considered as a mitigating factor, and how it affected his culpability and potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the circumstances of aggravation, and compared the sentence with those imposed in similar cases.

The court found that while the crimes committed warranted a significant punishment, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the crimes, but also recognised the mitigating factors, including Hammond's heroin addiction. The court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed and did not constitute an error in the exercise of the court's sentencing discretion.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court highlighted the importance of considering both the gravity of the offences and the individual circumstances of the offender in determining an appropriate sentence. The decision underscored the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both punitive and rehabilitative objectives.

Orders