SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hart [2012] QCA 38
PARTIES:
R
v
HART, Armin Rolf
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 183 of 2011
DC No 11 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at BundabergDELIVERED ON:
6 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 February 2012
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, White JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where applicant attacked a sleeping man with an iron bar without provocation leading to severe and life threatening injuries – where applicant also convicted of 13 other counts including burglary with threatening violence, robbery while armed, unlawful assault, unlawful wounding and unlawful deprivation of personal liberty – where offences involved applicant engaging in unprovoked attacks – where a psychiatric report obtained for purposes of assessing soundness of mind used for other purposes – where letter of remorse written three days prior to sentencing – where applicant plead guilty – whether trial judge erred in rejecting applicant’s expression of remorse – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
R v Eade[2005] QCA 148, considered
R v Hasanovic[2010] QCA 337, considered
R v Mikaele[2008] QCA 261, considered
R v Mitchell[2006] QCA 240, distinguished
R v Scheers[2010] QCA 318, considered
R v Sielaff[1995] QCA 606, consideredCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
JA Woolridge for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
CHIEF JUSTICE:
Introduction
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court on 8 June 2011, following his pleas of guilty the preceding day. They were (with the terms of imprisonment imposed listed in descending order):
Count 1:doing grievous bodily harm with intent, committed upon S J Robertson on 3 April 2010; 12 years imprisonment;
Count 5:burglary of dwelling of P W Cromarty (breaking in) while armed and with intent to commit an indictable offence, and threatening violence and damaging property, on 18 April 2010; 12 years imprisonment;
Count 6:robbery of A C Hilbert while armed with a knife, on 18 April 2010, then using other personal violence against L A Constable; 10 years imprisonment;
Count 7:robbery of K Konig while armed with a knife, on 18 April 2010, then using other personal violence against L A Constable; 10 years imprisonment;
Count 8:robbery of L A Constable while armed with a knife, on 18 April 2010, and then using other personal violence against her; 10 years imprisonment;
Count 2:unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm to T Zorkler while armed with an offensive instrument, on 18 April 2010;…
Continue reading R v Hart
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hart [2012] QCA 38
- Case
- [2012] QCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the applicant’s expression of remorse and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court examined the severity of the crimes committed, the nature of the injuries inflicted, the applicant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have considered his expression of remorse, which was written shortly before sentencing. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences.
The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the applicant’s expression of remorse, as it was presented too close to the sentencing date to be considered genuine. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The severity of the offences, the unprovoked nature of the attacks, and the significant harm caused to the victims justified the sentence imposed. The court took into account the applicant's plea of guilty and the psychiatric report, which, while not directly relevant to the soundness of mind, provided context to the applicant's behaviour.
The court refused the application, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The seriousness of the crimes and the lack of genuine remorse demonstrated by the applicant supported the trial judge’s decision. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application refused.
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.