SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hampson [2011] QCA 132
PARTIES:
R
v
HAMPSON, Bradley Paul
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 57 of 2011
DC No 478 of 2011
DC No 581 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 June 2011
JUDGES:
Muir and White JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Muir and White JJA concurring as to the orders made, Daubney J dissentingORDERS:
Delivered ex tempore on 3 June 2011:
The application for leave to appeal against sentence be allowed.1.
The appeals be allowed and the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment be set aside.2.
and that he be released forthwith under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for the remainder of a period of two years probation.For each of counts 1 and 4, the applicant be sentenced to six months imprisonment 3.
The applicant undergo such psychological and/or psychiatric assessment and treatment as may be directed by an authorised corrective services officer. 4.
For each of counts 2 and 3, the applicant be sentenced to two years imprisonment and that he be released immediately upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1,000 conditioned on his being of good behaviour for two years. 5.
All such sentences be served concurrently with each other.6.
It was declared that the period of 220 days spent by the applicant in pre-sentence custody between 4 June 2010 and 2 July 2010 and between 16 September 2010 and 25 March 2011 be times served by him under his sentences.7.
It was directed that the applicant’s legal representatives explain the following matters to him in order to satisfy the requirements of s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth):8.
He has been sentenced to two years imprisonment but the Court has ordered that he be released immediately upon his entering into a bond of $1,000;a.
The purpose of that order is to enable him to be released earlier than the full term of his sentence and to provide him with the opportunity to carry out the balance of his punishment in the community;b.
The bond is conditional upon him being subject to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of two years. The bond is also conditional upon him being of good behaviour and, if he does not comply with its conditions, he may be brought back to Court and dealt with and depending on the nature of the breach, he may be required to serve the balance of his unserved period of imprisonment in prison; andc.
The terms of the bond may be varied or discharged, in appropriate circumstances, at any time during the period of the bond.d.
It was directed also that:9.
The consequences of a probation be explained to the applicant; and a.
That the applicant report to an…
Continue reading R v Hampson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hampson [2011] QCA 132
- Case
- [2011] QCA 132
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentences were not warranted given the nature of the offences, and that the sentence was excessive in light of his autism and the lack of comparable cases. The applicant contended that the sentences were not in the worst category of cases and thus should not have been as severe. The court was required to consider whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate.
The court considered the arguments made by the applicant and reviewed the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant had a prior conviction for similar offences, which indicated a pattern of behaviour. However, the court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court took into account the applicant's autism and the lack of comparable cases but found that the severity of the offences warranted a strong message to deter similar conduct in the future. The court replaced the sentences with new ones that reflected the seriousness of the offences while taking into account the applicant's circumstances.
The court set aside the original sentences and imposed new sentences. The applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment for each of counts 1 and 4, and two years imprisonment for each of counts 2 and 3, to be served concurrently. The applicant was also released immediately upon entering into a recognizance of $1,000 conditioned on his being of good behaviour for two years. The court also directed that the applicant undergo psychological and/or psychiatric assessment and treatment as may be directed by an authorised corrective services officer. The court further declared that the period of 220 days spent by the applicant in pre-sentence custody be times served by him under his sentences. Finally, the court directed that the applicant's legal representatives explain certain matters to him to satisfy the requirements of s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
Delivered ex tempore on 3 June 2011:
The application for leave to appeal against sentence be allowed.1.
The appeals be allowed and the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment be set aside.2.
and that he be released forthwith under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for the remainder of a period of two years probation.For each of counts 1 and 4, the applicant be sentenced to six months imprisonment 3.
The applicant undergo such psychological and/or psychiatric assessment and treatment as may be directed by an authorised corrective services officer. 4.
For each of counts 2 and 3, the applicant be sentenced to two years imprisonment and that he be released immediately upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1,000 conditioned on his being of good behaviour for two years. 5.
All such sentences be served concurrently with each other.6.
It was declared that the period of 220 days spent by the applicant in pre-sentence custody between 4 June 2010 and 2 July 2010 and between 16 September 2010 and 25 March 2011 be times served by him under his sentences.7.
It was directed that the applicant’s legal representatives explain the following matters to him in order to satisfy the requirements of s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth):8.
He has been sentenced to two years imprisonment but the Court has ordered that he be released immediately upon his entering into a bond of $1,000;a.
The purpose of that order is to enable him to be released earlier than the full term of his sentence and to provide him with the opportunity to carry out the balance of his punishment in the community;b.
The bond is conditional upon him being subject to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of two years. The bond is also conditional upon him being of good behaviour and, if he does not comply with its conditions, he may be brought back to Court and dealt with and depending on the nature of the breach, he may be required to serve the balance of his unserved period of imprisonment in prison; andc.
The terms of the bond may be varied or discharged, in appropriate circumstances, at any time during the period of the bond.d.
It was directed also that:9.
The consequences of a probation be explained to the applicant; and a.
That the applicant report to an authorised corrective services officer at Bundaberg on or before 4 pm on Monday 6 June 2011.b.
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.