R v Hansen

[2018] QCA 153

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hansen [2018] QCA 153

PARTIES:

R
v
HANSEN, Craig Lindsay
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 265 of 2017
DC No 1881 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 12 October 2017 (Chief Judge O’Brien)

DELIVERED ON:

6 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Mullins and Bond JJ

ORDERS:

1.      Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.      Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.      The sentence for count 6 varied by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and not further punishing the applicant.

4.      The sentences for each of counts 7 to 11 varied by substituting six months’ imprisonment for three years’ imprisonment.

5.      The sentence for count 13 varied by substituting three years four months’ imprisonment for four years’ imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where applicant was sentenced for one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a person with an impairment of the mind under care, one count of indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind and five counts of indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind under care – where the sentencing judge was wrongly informed by the prosecutor and defence counsel that there was no power to fix a parole eligibility date – where the respondent conceded error was made – where applicant must be re-sentenced – where the applicant had an intellectual impairment and personality disorder – where the applicant had 1,215 days spent in presentence custody that was not declarable – where the offences were committed whilst the applicant was on a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history – where guilty pleas were late – where protection of the community paramount

Attorney-General v Hansen [2006] QSC 35, related
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Hansen [2011] QSC 123, related
R v Bell; ex parte Attorney General (Qld)[2002] QCA 344, considered
R v Bowley (2016) 262 A Crim R 93; [2016 QCA 254, cited
R v Cutts[2005] QCA 306, considered
R v Libke[2006] QCA 242, considered
R v Raphael[2009] QCA 145, considered
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, considered

COUNSEL:

D A Holliday for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and the orders proposed by her Honour.

2. MULLINS J:  The applicant Mr Hansen was on a supervision order made on 4 May 2011 pursuant to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSOA), when on 31 May and…